A reply to Mr. Rutherfurd, or A defence of the answer to Reverend Mr. Herles booke against the independency of churches. VVherein such objections and answers, as are returned to sundry passages in the said answer by Mr. Samuel Rutherfurd, a godly and learned brother of the Church of Scotland, in his boke entituled The due right of Presbyters, are examined and removed, and the answer justified and cleared. / By Richard Macher [sic] teacher to the church at Dorchester in New England. 1646.

To the Christian Reader .

IN the yeare 1643. there came forth a Treatise against Independency , under the name of my Reverend and learned Brother Mr. Charles Herle , the Pastor of Winwick in Lancashire . This Treatise , because it seemed to bee written with such a Candid and peaceable spirit as might witnesse for its Author that the thing he aymed at therein was meerly the disquisition of the Truth ; and because the Author thereof was many yeares agoe of my Reverend brother Mr. Tompsons acquaintance and mine ; therefore we thought it might not be in vaine if we should lovingly communicate to the learned Author such apprehensions of ours , whereby wee were detained from concurring with his judgement in the principall Question disputed in the said Treatise . And therefore in the latter end of the same yeare , there came forth a small Script under our Name in way of a brotherly Answer to that his loving and learned Treatise . Against this Answer Mr. Samuell Rutherford a learned writer of the Church of Scotland , hath alledged and published many Objections . Exceptions , and Answers , in his Booke entituled The due right of Presbyteries : I may call them many , because in that Treatise of his there are no lesse then 24 or 25 severall places , wherein he bring up by name the said Answer , disputing against sundry passages therein as if they were not sound ; which passages if they be indeed erronious and unsound , are a great many to bee contained and found in so small a Work the whole Booke as it is now printed containing in it 30. leaves : So that the leaves in the Booke are not much more then the places therein which this learned Writer doth object against ; which being considered , I thought it therefore needfull to peruse and weigh as the Lord should helpe , the severall places of his fore-mentioned Treatise , wherein he deales against the said Answer : And having so done , I here present my apprehentions to publike view , leaving the Prudent and judicious Reader to consider and judge ; whether this Reverend and learned Brother have sufficiently overthrowne or weak'ned the said Answer , or whether the same doe not still remaine agreable to the rule of Truth , notwithstanding his Objections against the same , or such Answers as he doth returne to severall passages therein .

CHAP. I. Of Appeales from particular Congregations and the true cause of Appeales ; and whether by Mr. Rutherford his doctrine in this point there may not be Appeales to generall Councils , whose power of Iu●isdiction he doth yet deny .

FIrst of all in his Page 315. ( for that is the first place wherein I find him medling with the Answer ) speaking of doubts concerning Math. 18. 17. Tell the Church ; In a 9 . th Objection about that Scripture , besides other particulers hee hath these words , viz. There is no reason to appeale to a higher Iudicature because the inferiour may erre , because all above a Congregation are Courts which may erre ; Presbyteries Provinciall , Nationall , the universall Councill of the Catholicke Church may erre : And then for author of this part of the Objection hee subjoyneth my Name , and Answer to Mr. Herle , Cap. 2. pag. 13 , 14.

Answ . When hee is discoursing of doubts concerning that Scripture , Math 18. Tell the Church , I know no reason why hee should bring those words of mine at such a time or for such a purpose . For though I doe acknowledge that I wrote the words which hee hath set downe or such like , in the place by him alledged ; yet that they were brought by me for such purpose as hee doth report ( viz. For the cleering of Doubts concerning the meaning of Math. 18 17. ) that I doe utterly deny . He that shall looke upon the Chapter and Pages alledged , will find that I doe not there meddle at all with that Scripture , either for one purpose or another ; and therefore cannot be truly said to have used the words alledged , in way of cleering Doubts concerning the same . And albeit in another place , ( cap. 3. pag. 22. et sequ . ) I doe purposely speake to that Scripture ; yet in that place there is no mention at all of the words by him alledged nor of any such like , and where such words are to be found , there that Scripture is not mentioned at all . Now who knoweth not that a man may be much wronged , when the words which hee hath spoken are taken and applyed to such a purpose , for which he did never bring them nor intend them .

But to let this passe , let us heare what our Reverend Author saith against the words alledged , in his Answer .

The cause of Appeales , saith he , is not because inferiour Iudicatures may erre , for so wee might appeale from all Iudicatures , even from a generall Councill , for it may erre , Pag. 315. lin . ult .

Answ . Is not this the very same that was said in the Answer , Pag. 13 , 14. The pages which hee here undertakes to answer , is it not there said ; As for Classicaticall Provinciall , and Nationall Synods , there is none of these but those Cases of deficiency and possibility of Partiality may befall the best of them ; and therefore if for these causes the single Congregations may not be indep●ndant , but there may be Appeales from them , the Synods being subject to the like , there may bee liberty of Appeales from them also — . For as the Congregations may be partiall and erre , so we suppose it will not be denyed but the Classis may erre , the Provinciall Synod may erre , the Nationall may erre , yea generall Councils may erre ; and so by this reason not Synods nor generall Councils may have entirenesse of Jurisdiction , but there may be liberty of Appeales from them also . These are our words in those very Pages which here Mr. Rutherford pretends to Answer and disprove or confute . But in stead of a Confutation we see we have nothing but a plaine Confession or affirmation of his owne , that the thing is even so as was affirmed by us before . Now why hee should make a show of taking away or weak'ning that which we had said , and then in stead of accomplishing what he undertakes , to doe no more but onely to say the same thing againe which wee had said before , what reason I say he had for this I know not ; but plaine it is that for the particular in hand , the Answer which he pretends to weaken , is not yet weakned at all , but rather strengthned and confirmed by his apparent yeelding the Cause , and affirming the same that was before affirmed by us .

But saith hee Pag. 316. The true cause ( viz. of Appealing to higher Courts ) is , 1. Because they doe not so frequently erre . 2. They are not so inclined and disposed to erre ; for many eyes see more then one , and doe more seldome miscarry in taking up the right Object : 3. Because wee conceive more equality and lesse partiality in higher Courts .

Answ . These three Reasons seeme much what the same , or to hang one upon another ; for therefore they doe more seldome erre because they are not so disposed and inclined to erre , and they are not so inclined because they are more in number , and because there is in them more equality and lesse partiality : So that upon the matter it is but one reason , viz. because though they may erre , yet not so frequently and likely as the Congregation .

Yet ( be they three Reasons , or be they but one ) let us consider what force there is in this sa●ing to take away entirenesse of Iurisdiction from a Congregation , and to establish the necessity of appealing from the same unto a Synod , for this is the thing that should be cleared .

First of all it may be a question , whether Synods doe more seldome erre then the Presbyteries of Congregations : And the reason of the doubt is ; because the Promise of the presence of Ch●●st is not made meerly to multitude or greatnesse of number ; but if they bee but two or three gathered together in his Name , his Promise is that hee will be present in the midst of them , Math. 18. 20. Now the Promise of his presence being to so small a number gathered together in his Name , why may not a Congregation and its Presbyterie being so gathered , though they be a lesser number then Synods and Councels ; yet bee partakers of the benefit of this Promise , for the preserving of them from Error , as well as those greater Assemblies ? 〈…〉 not but in multitude of Counsellers there is safety : nor doe I doubt but Synods and Council● gathered together in the Name of Christ , may expect the per●●●●ance of this Promise of our Saviours presence : But the thing I doubt of is this , whether a Congregationall Church of Saints , furnished with an able and ●aithfull Presbyterie ( for of such onely doe I speake ) may not by vertue of this Promise bee as frequently preserved fro● Error as those greater Assemblies of Synods and Councils , Posito that the Synods and Counci●ls did as frequently come together as the Congregation doth : For otherwise I grant , the Synods meeting more seldome may erre more seldome : but let the Comparison be equall in respect of the time of Assembling and comming together , and then I doubt whether Synods 〈◊〉 preserved from Error any oftener then the fore-mentioned lesser Assemblies .

It is well knowne what N●zianzen said of Synods or Councils in his time , viz. That hee had never seene good and happie end of any of them , and that evils were not so much redressed as increased thereby . Epist . ad Procop●um , Quae Est numere 42. Referr . Whitak De Concill . Q. 1. cap. 3. True it is , Nazianzen lived as Dr. Whi●●● observeth , Pessimis & turbulentissimia Ecclesiae Temporibus , in very corrupt and troublesome Titues , when by reason that Valens the Emperour was averse from the Truth , H●retickes much prevailed and Corruptions greatly increased ; and this might make the good man something more to dislike all Councils then there was cause . Neverthelesse his words doe apparently witnesse , that in his time Synods and Councils did not seldome erre but very often ; so that hee for his part had never seene good that had come by any of them . Then which saying I suppose one would not speake more hardly of a particular Congregation and its Presbyterie ; and therefore by this testimony of his my doubt is increased ; whether the matter be in 〈…〉 Mr. Rutherford doth say , viz. That Synods and Councils doe Rariùs erra●● , more seldome erre then such a particular Congregation as here I am speaking of .

But suppose it were so as hee doth affirme ( and I will not deny it , onely as I said I doubt of it ) yet I doe not see what great matter hee can gaine thereby for the furthering of his purpose , that there must be liberty of Appeales from particular Congregations unto Classes and Synods , as unto higher Courts . For if this be the reason 〈◊〉 such Appeales , because such Assemblies doe more seldome erre , because many eyes doe see more , and doe more seldome miscary in taking up the right object ; Then it will follow that the greatest Assemblies , in as much as they have the most eyes , doe of all others most seldome erre , and so to them there must bee the most Appeales . For the learned Author well knowes , à quatenùs ad Omni● valet consequentia . And so by this meanes the true cause and reason of Appeales lying ( according to Mr. Rutherford his apprehension ) in the rarenesse and seldomnesse of erring in such Assemblies to whom appeales are made , and the cause of this seldomnesse of Erring lying in the multitude and great number of eyes in such Assemblies , it must needs thereupon follow , that Vniversall or generall Councils as having in them the most eyes , are the Assemblies that doe most seldome erre , and so un●o them there must be most Appeales . Which if it be gran●ed , the Classicall , 〈◊〉 , and Nationall Synods , are all by this meanes deprived and stri●t of 〈◊〉 of ●●●●diction as well as the particular Congregations , the Synods by 〈◊〉 to generall Councils , as to those that doe ra●iùs c●rare , aswell as the 〈…〉 appeales unto the Synods : And so thera must be no entirenesse of 〈…〉 onely in the generall Councils , but from all other Synods there must 〈◊〉 liberty of Appeales , aswell as from the Congregation . This Consequence for ought I see doth unavoidably follow upon that which Mr. Rutherford lay undowne as the cause of Appealing from a particular Congregation : and so ou● Brethren by this meanes have spun a fine thred , drawing forth a Conclusion which is every what as prejudiciall to their owne Cause as to ours .

If any aske why may not this Consequence be owned ? Why may wee not say , there must bee liberty of Appeales from all Synods and Presbyteries , except onely the generall Councill ? The Answer is , th●t wee may not so say ; because then Causes would be too long depending a●ore they could come to issue , yea perhaps would never come to issue as long as this world shall endure : For by this Rule they may by Appeales upon appeales be protracted untill they be brought to a generall Councill to be determined there . Now as there hath not beene any such Councill for many Ages by-past , so it is very uncertaine when there will be one assembled , whether ever or never whilst this world stands . But wee thinke Christ Jesus hath provided better for his Church then so , and hath not appointed such a necessitie of Appeales upon appeales , but that Causes may bee determined afore any generall Councill can be assembled .

Besides , if such Assemblies might be frequently attained , yet it is not yet cleered , that when they are assembled they have any power of Iurisdiction at all ; but onely a Doctrinall power to cleare up the Rule , the power of Iurisdiction remaining in some other Assembly . Sure it is , Mr. Rutherford thus teacheth expresly , for his words are these ; Verily I professe I cannot see what power of Jurisdiction to Censure scandals can be in a generall Councill ; there may bee some meerly Doctrinall power if such a Councill could be had , and that is all . Due Right , &c. pag. 482. and in the end of the same Page and beginning of the next , speaking of those words , Math. 18. Tell the Church , hee saith thus ; Because ordinary Communion faileth when you goe higher then a Nationall Church , and Christ's way supposeth an ordinary Communion — ; therefore I deny that this remedy is needfull in any Church above a Nationall Church . By which sayings it appeareth , that he counts Christs remedy to Censure Scandals not needfull in a generall Councill , yea and hee seriously professeth , that hee cannot see that such a Councill if it could bee had , hath any power of Iurisdiction at all to censure Scandals . Which being so , it must needs follow , that Scandals must be censured , and Causes ended somewhere else , afore they can come 〈◊〉 such end to a generall Councill . And if this bee so , then how can that stand which here hee affirmeth , that the true cause of Appealing to Synods in this ; because they doe rariùs errare , more seldome Erre , then the particuler Congregation , and having many eyes doe more seldome miscarry in taking up the right object : For this Cause is most properly appliable to the generall Councill , unto whom notwithstanding hee denies any power of Iurisdiction to censure Scandals ; and if they h●ve no such Power , there can bee no Appeales to them for such purpose and end .

And how these things can stand toget●er , That the true cause of Appeales to such or such Assemlies doth he in this , that they doe more seldome erre as having many eyes , and yet that to generall Councils there should be no Appeales at all , as having no power of Iurisdiction , though of all others this Cause be most properly ●ound in them , I for my part doe confesse I doe not understand .

If any shall say , that as Mr. Ruthe●ford doth make that which I have mentioned the true cause of Appeales , so hee doth also hold a Power of Iurisdiction even in generall Councils ; and shall therefore doubt whether I doe truly report him 〈◊〉 touch the contrary , I would wish no more favour of such a one but to peruse the places which I have here above alledged , and then I hope hee will ●nd the words to bee no otherwise , but as I have set them downe .

I know indeed there are some places in him which doe looke another way ; as that where hee saith , It is by accident and not through want of inuat● and intrinsecall power , that the Court of a Catholick Councill can not in an ordinary and constant way exercise that Power which now we are speaking of Due Right , page 308. And a little after hee saith , He seeth nothing to prove that a generall Councill hath not power to Excommunicate a Nationall Church . Yea and further , that if there were a generall Councill at this d●y , they might lawfully in a Iuridicall way ( so are his words ) doe that to the faction of Romish pretended Catholicks ; which hee saith , is Excommunication in the essence and substance of th● Act. And in the Page next ensuing he saith , This of our Saviour , Tell the Church , is necessarily to be applyed to all Churches and Courts of Christ , even to a Catholick Councill . These Places I confesse doe seeme to me not very well to agree with the either afore alledged : For in the one he plainly affirmes , there is in generall Councils power of Iurisdiction to censure Scanda●s , and in the other hee doth as plainly deny the same . But it is the former places and not these latter which I doe stand upon ; in which former as I conceive him to hold the truth , so for ought I see , that which hee saith in this place wee have in hand about the true cause of Appealing from Congregations to Synods is much infirmed thereby . For how can that be taken to be the true cause of Appeales , which is most properly found in such Assemblies ( I me●ne in generall Councils ) unto whom as having no Power of Iurisdiction , there must be no ap●eales at all ?

To conclude this Chapter : When wee doe enquire about Power of appealing , and unto what Courts appeales must be brought , our way is not to seeke for such ●ourts as cannot Erre , for such wee shall never find ; nor for such as we thinke will more seldome erre , as Mr. Rutherford would have it ; for that Rule is also subject to much uncertainty and exception , as hath beene already declared . But the best way is to enquire where the Lord JESVS hath placed the Power of the last and finall censuring and determining of Causes , and when that is found therewith to rest contented . And as for Synods and Councils , it is neither their not Erring , nor their seldome erring that can bee a suffi●ient argument to place the Power of Iurisdiction in them ; unlesse the Lord Iesus had so appointed and ordained , which yet doth not appeare .

And so much for this first place , wherein our Brother deales against the Answer .

CHAP. II. Of the Power of Synods to give advice and Counsell , and whether from thence it doth follow , that they have no power to Command .

THe next place wherein I find this learned Author dealing with the Answer , is in his Page 381. Where having in the Close of a 4 . th Objection in the prece●ent Page brought in these words , viz. A Synod in dogmaticall Power ariseth no higher then this ( viz. a man , or a single Congregation ) as that a divine Institution doth fall upon it . Amongst other things in his Answer to the Objection hee saith thus , viz. I would know if a Synods dogmaticall Power be above the power of single Congregations ; I think saith he , it is not by our Brethrens tenents ; for they say expressely that every particular Church hath right , jus , to decide Dogmaticall points : This right the Church of Antioch had ( Act. 15 ) an● laboured to end that Controversie within her selfe , which sheweth that they had Right an● Power : but they had not Ability ; and therefore in that case they seeke for Counsell , light , and advise from other Churches — . And then amongst other places for Proofe that this is our Tenent , hee alledgeth in his margent my Name and Mr. Tompson● in the Answer to Mr. Herle , Chap. 2. and after the words above rehearsed and some others to the like purpose , hee inferreth thus : Hence saith hee , the power of Synods is onely by way of Counsell and advise .

Answ . To omit ( at least for this time ) the other Places alledged in his margent , and not to examine how farre his Answer reacheth to satisfie the Objection , as himselfe hath propounded it ; I will onely consider of such things as doe directly Concerne the answer , for that is the scope ●ayme at , and I endeavour to keepe close thereto .

First therefore I have this to say , That for the Dogmaticall power of Synods above Congregations , for the Right and Power of the Church of Antioch in particular , and for the Power of Synods to bee onely by way of Counsell and advise , there is not in the Chapter alledged so much as one word about any one of those 〈◊〉 either one way or another ; so that I cannot but marvell why this reverend Brother should alledge that Chapter for such a purpose .

2. Although in another place of the Answer , viz. Page 4● . there be words to the like purpose with those which our Author here sets downe concerning Antioch , yet for the Conclusion and consequence which hee would thence inferre , viz. That the power of Synods is onely by way of Counsell and advice , as there is nothing said ● the Chapter by him alledged that lookes that way , so there is nothing in the Page or Chapter where A●tioch is spoken of , nor any where else in all th● Booke 〈◊〉 as I doe remember , that can any way serve for the proving of such a Conclusion and tenent to bee ours . The Author alledgeth no place that hath such a conclusion in it , either in direct words or by just consequence : and I professe that for my part I doe not know of any such .

3. But this I doe know that the direct contrary to what here is expressed is plainly to be found in another place of the said answer , viz. Pag. 7. where there are these words , viz. If a Synod may b● called a Church , and if Power by disputation and disquisition to cleare up the Rule , and then to Command Obedience thereto , may be called Government , then they ( viz. the Independants as they are called ) doe admit a Synod to bee a governing Church , for the Power here m●ntioned they doe allow unto Synods . Now the Power here mentioned being , as we see , not onely a Power by disputation to cleare up the Rule , but also a Power to Command obedience thereto , they allowing this power unto Synods as they doe exprestly say that they doe ; I know not why our Brother should say , that they allow unto Synods onely a Power of Counsell and advice . For power to Command Obedience , and power onely by way of Counsell and advice , I suppose are not the same ; and if they be not , I know not how this report in this particuler can bee made good . To me it seemes apparent and undenyable , that they who have Power to Command Obedience , have more then only a Power to counsell and advise ; and they who have onely this latter have no Power of the ●orme● at all . Even interiours , as Naamans servants , 2 King. 5. have power to counsell and advise their Master , and yet I hope they had no Power to Command their Master to yeeld Obedience .

4 Suppose it bee true ( which I deny not ) that the Answer in another place , ( ●hough not in the place by him alledged ) doth say , that A●tioch had right to have ended the matter amongst themselves , if ability had served thereto , and that by reason of Distention and through want of Light they were forced to send out to ●●rusalem for helpe , must it needs follow thereupon that his assembly at Ierusalem had no more Power but onely by way of Counsell and advise ? ( which is the Conclusion which hee endeavours to draw ●●om that which is said concerning Antioch ) I ●●●ceive there is no necessity at all of such a consequence .

For whence must the same 〈◊〉 I suppose from one of these two , either from this , that Antioch is supposed and said to have had Right within her selfe , or else from this that Jerusalem gives Counsell and advise . Any other colour for concluding such a Conseptionce as is in question , the Answer affords none that I know of . 〈◊〉 for these two Particulers here mentioned , they are both insufficient for such 〈◊〉 purpose .

For what should hinder but there bee more Power in the Synod of ●erusalem towards them of Antioch then only by way of counsell and advise , even power to command them to do what is their duty , though Antioch have right to end the matter themselves , if ability serves thereto ? Doth right in one Person or Assembly to end their ma●●ers if they be able , extempt them from being under the command of others ? Hoshoulders have right to governe and order their families , if so be that they be able : doth it follow therefore that Superiors in Church or civill state have no power to command housholders to do their duty herein , but only to give counsell and advise ? Or if housholdere have such right , doth it follow that therefore they are under no command , in Church and Common-wealth ? I suppose it will not follow at all . Or shall we say , that Classes and Provinciall Synods have no right to end their own matters within themselves , if a Nationall Synod have power to command them ? Or if they have such right , shall we therefore say they are not under the command of the Nationall Synod , and that the Nationall Synod hath no power over them but only by way of Counsell and advise ? Wee suppose Master Rutherford will not say so : and yet he might as well say it , as say as hee he doth , that because Antioch hath right to ●nd her own matter if they be able , therefore a Synod hath no power but only by way of Counsell and advise .

And though the Synod is to give Counsell and advise ( which was the other ground whereon the conclusier afore mentioned seemes to be built ) yet neither will Master Rutherford his conclus●on , that the power of Synods is only by way of Counsell and advise , follow from thence at all . For who knoweth not that . Counsell and advise may be administred and given by them , who have also power to command ? Not every one indeed as may advise and Counsell , may forth with command and enjoyne : Neverthelesse , Counsell and Command are not so repugnant , but that they who may Command , may also advise . Paul had power to Command and enjoyne Phyl●mon to do what was convenient , and yet for loves sake would rather beseech him , Philem. 8. 9. The Lord Iesus to doubt hath absolute authority to Command , and yet we find him sometimes speaking to the Sons of men by way of Counsell or advise . Revel . 3. ●8 . I Counsell thee to buy of me Gold , that thou mayest he rich , &c. shall we now inferre from hence , that the power of the Lord Iesus is only by way of Counsell aud advise , and that his power cannot amount to the nature of a Command ? I suppose we would be afraid and abhorre to deduce such a consequence . And therefore , though a Synod may advise , yet their power to Command ( which is more then meere Counsell and aduise ) is not from thence concluded to be Null . And so much for Master Rutherford his second place , wherein he deales against the answer .

CHAP. III. Of the Assembly , Act. 15. Whether they did exercise any power of Iurisdiction against the obtruders of Circumcision , and whether their rebuking of them do argue the Affirmative .

IN his page 388. He laies downe this as a 2d. Object . viz. That there is no censuring of persons for Scandals , and that meeting , Act , 15. Because there is nothing there but a Doctrinall declaration of the falshood of their opinion who taught the necessity of Circumcision : and that all is done by way of Doctrine and by power of the Keyes of knowledge , not of Iurisdiction , is cleere from the end of the meeting , which was verse 2 & 6. To consider of that Question : Consideration of Questions being the end of the Synod , is a thing belonging to Doctrinall Power meerely . And then he s●●joyneth my name , and in the Margent alledgeth the answer , chap. 1. page 8.

Ans . Whereto I first of all returne this answer . First , that the thing here in Question being about the power of that meeting Acts 15. There is nothing in the place alledged by Master Rutherford that can warrant him to frame such an Objection under Master Tompsons name and mine , as proceeding from us : And the reason is , because that meeting Acts 15 , is not mentioned at all in the place by him alledged , neither for that purpose which he sets down , nor for any other ; much losse is the Objection ours in Terminis . Now to frame an Objection , and to alledge chapter and page for proofe that the Objection is ours , when as neither page nor chapter aleadged do speake any thing at all of that matter , what reason can be given for this I know not .

Neverthelesse , because the matter contayned in the Objection doth not much differ from my apprehension and judgement , and something in the answer elsewhere may possibly intimate such a thing , though but briefly touched , I will therefore consider of what he saith for removing the Objection as himselfe hath propounded the same .

It is false , saith he , that there is no censuring of persons here , for — it is more then evident that the publike Synodicall censure of rebuke is put upon those who held and urged the necessity of Circumcision , and why not Excommunication also in case of obstinacy ? For the Synodicall censure of a publike Synodicall rebuke is only gradually different , not specifically from excommunication , & both must proceed from ou● & the same power . So then the summe is , the Synod had power of rebuking , and therefore of Excommunication also .

Answ . The Consequence is not cleere , for who knoweth not that there may be power to rebuke , where there is no power of Excommunication ? Is it not the expresse Law of God , that every man shall plainly rebuke his Neighbour and not suffer sin upon him , Levit. 19. 17 ? And are not our 〈◊〉 words as plaine , if thy brother trespasle against thee rebuke him , and if he repent forgive him , Luke 17. 3 ? Whereby it is evident that one particular person hath power by the Law of God and Christ to put a rebuke upon another , if there be occasion for it . But will it follow hereupon that one particular Christian hath power to Excommunicate another in case of Obstinacy ? I suppose Master Rutherford will not say so ; and yet unlesse this be said , I know not how his Consequence can be made good , that if a Synod may rebuke , they may Excommunicate also . I know indeed he saith , the Synodicall rebuke is only gradually different from Excommunication , and not specifically , and that both must proceed from one and the same Power . But this would require some proofe , and should not nakedly be affirmed without any proofe at all . For of it selfe it is not evident , that where ●ver there is power to rebuke , there is power of Excommunication also . The contrary I suppose is evident from that which hath already been said from Levit. 19. 17. and Luke 17. 3. and from many other Scriptures , and reasons , which shew that one man alone hath power to rebuke , who cannot for that be concluded to have any power of Excommunication . I know the learned m●n is copious in proving from the words of verse 24. Certaine men went from us , and have troubled you with words , subverting your Soules , &c. That this Assembly doth not only in a Doctrinall way confute the false opinion and Doctrine of these teachers of Circumcision , but doth also rebuke them for another fault , to wit ; their obtruding their false way upon the Soules and Consciences of others , and for their wilfull and obstinate upholding that opinion and raysing a Schisme in the Church . But if all this were granted his purpose were not gained thereby , unlesse he would prove that which he doth but only affirme , to wit , That a Synodicall rebuke is not specifically different but only gradually from Excommunication , and that both must proceed from the same power , which ye● he hath not proved at all .

But saith he , I argue thus : If the Apostles do not only in a Doctrinall way refute a false Doctrine in this Synod , but also in Church way and by a Juridicall power do rebuke and Synodically charge the Authors as subverters of Soules , and Lyers , then they doe not onely use a meere Doctrinall power in this Synod , but also a Juridicall power : but the former is true : Ergo , so is the latter .

Answ . With favour of so learned a man , I thinke this kind of argu●ng is but a begging of the thing in question , and a proving of Idem per Idem . For if the Synod did not only in a Doctrinall way refute a false Doctrine , but also by a Iuridicall power rebuke the Authors of it , then it must needs be true indeed that they did not only use a Doctrinall power , but also a Iuridicall power ; that is , If they did so , they did so : if they did use such power , they did use it . But there still lyes the question , whether they did so or no : and whether they did use such power or not , and this kind of arguing doth not cleere it all . If we on the contrary should argue thus , if this Assembly did not put forth any power of Iurisdiction or Discipline , but only in a Doctrinall way con●ute a false Doctrine and rebuke the Authors of it , then they did onely put forth a Doctrinall power , and not any power of Iurisdiction , one of farre lesse abilities then our learned Author , would soone espy the loosenesse of such reasoning : at least himselfe , we doubt not , would soone espy it , for sometimes we heare him say , friend your Logick is naught , page 177. And yet ( be it spoke without offence ) the Logick which himselfe doth here use is not so good , as to be altogether without fault , no not for the forme of it ; and therefore , we do not see how any thing can be concluded th●reby .

But to leave this mistake , and to consider of the matter it selfe . If it were granted that this Assembly doth not only in a Doctrinall way consute a false Doctrine , but also rebuke the Authors thereof , must it needs follow that this rebuking was done in a Iu●idicall way ? Is there no rebuking of offenders for their faults , but only in a way of ●●●●ction and Discipline ? I suppose much needs not to be said for the cleering the truth to be otherwise . For Master Rutherford himselfe confesses Page 394. That there is great odds to do one and the same action materially , and to do the same formally : and Page 393. That one Apostle might himselfe alone have rebuked these obtruders of Circumcision . Which being so , it followeth thereupon that though this Synod ( to call it so ) Act. 15. Had a Doctrinall power , yea and a power of rebuking these false teachers ; yet the thing that he from thence would inferre , viz. Their power of rebuking in a Iuridicall way , and their power of Excommunication , these are neither of them proved thereby .

For if it should be said , that though rebuking do not alwayes imply Iuridicall power , yet if it be a Synod that doth rebuke , then the power here spoken of may be concluded thence to be in a Synod . The Answer is , that this will not helpe at all , because this is nothing but the bringing in of another Efficient , viz. The Synod , for effecting or acting the same effect . Now Master Rutherford confesseth pag. 393. That he doth not fetch the specification of this rebuke and of those Decrees from the efficient causes ; and gives that for his reason , which to me is unanswerable , to wit , because one Apostle might himselfe alone have rebuked these obtruders of Circumcision : And in the page next ensuing he confesseth also , that actions have not by good Logick their totall specification from the efficient cause . Which being so , then though it were granted that any Synod may , and that this Synod did performe this action of rebuking , yet the thing in question , to wit , that the power of a Synod is a power of Iurisdiction and of Excommunication is not at all gained thereby .

At the least wise ( to end this passage ) this I may say , that if this Reverend Brother will be true to his own Principles , and not gainsay what himselfe hath already written , he for his part cannot conclude the Synods power to Excommunicate from this argument of their power to rebuke , nor yet from any other argument whatsoever : and the reason is , because he doth elsewhere confesse that Synods are not to Excommunicate any , and not this Synod in particular to Excommunicate these false teachers , but to remit the censuring of them to other Churches , Commanding them to doe it . His words as they are to be seene in his Page 413. are these , viz. I could easily yeeld that there is no necessity of the Elicit acts of many parts of government , such as Excommunication , Ordination , admitting of Heathens , professing the Faith to Church-membership , in Synods Provincicall , Nationall or Oecumenicall ; but that Synods in the ease of neglect of Presbyterycall Churches , Command these particular Churches whom it concerneth to doe their duty : and in this sence Act. 15. Is to remit the censure of Excommunication to the Presbytery of Antioch and Ierusalem , in case of the obstinacy of these obtruders of Circumcision . In which words we have two things concerning Excommunication ( to omit other particulars ) first , that there is no necessity that Synods should Excommunicate any , but only command the Churches to do their duty therein . Secondly , in particular concerning that Synod Acts 15. That they were to remit the censure of Excommunication to the Presbyteries of Antioch and Jerusalem , in case of the obstinacy of these obtruders or Circumcision . Which particulars being most true ( as I for my part so esteeme of them ) it followes thereupon , that what Master Rutherford saith in this place we have now in hand , is greatly weakned thereby . For how both these can stand together , that this Synod should have power not only to rebuke , but to Excommunicate these false teachers , and yet neither Provinciall , Nationall , nor Oecumenicall Synods to Excommunicate any , nor this Synod in particular to Excommunicate these false teachers , but to remit the censure to other Churches to whom it concerned , commanding them to do it , how these things I say can stand together , I for my part am not able to understand .

CHAP. IIII. Of the Dogmaticall power of Synods , and of the power of Congregations to determine matters amongst themselves if ability serve thereto .

IN his Page 396. alledging Mr. Tompsons name and mine , and chap. 1. page 9. of the Answer . He saith we there teach that there is a power of cleering truth dogmatically , & that ultimately where the controversy is ended : but he saith , we will have this Vltimate power not in a Synod only , but also in a Congregation ; and then no answereth three things which there ensue .

Answ . Our words are these , by power of Decrees we understand power to cleere up the truth Dogmatically ; for the word translated Decrees is Dogmata in the Originall , Act. 16. 4. And this power we confesse is in a Synod , though not all in a Synod alone , but also in the Presbyterie of a single Congregation . Now these bring our words , if therefore this Reverend Brother would overthrow our Tenent in this particular , he should have proved that there is not any power as all in the Presbytery of a single Congregation to cleere up the truth Dogmatically : this indeed had been directly contrary to what we teach : But this be neither proveth , nor once attempteth to prove ; and therefore our Tenent herein doth yet stand good , for any thing he hath said to the contrary .

And no marvell , si●h the expresse words of the text do witnesse that every Bishop hath power and is boand by his Office and duty , by sound Doctrin● both to exhort and convince gainsayets , Tit. 1. 9. And accordingly the Presbitery of Antioch did labour to cleere up the truth in that controversy about Circumcision ; and had much disputation about it amongst themselves , afore there was any speech of sending to Jerusalem for help , Act. 15. 2. Which sheweth that they had power or right to have cleered the matter amongst themselves , if ability had served , or else this indeavour had been sinful as being an attempting to do that whereto they had no right . So that for ought we yet soe , the power that we speake of , and which wee hold to bee in the Presbytery of a Congregation is there indeed by the appointment of the Lord.

But let us heare Master Rutherfords Answer .

First , saith he , they seeme to make this Dogmaticall power a Church power , and the exercise thereof formally an act of Church government ; and so it must be Church power and Church government in the Synod , as well as in the Congregation .

Answ . Whence doth it seeme that we do so make it ? Are there any such words as here he sets down ? Or any words equivalent thereto ? Or doth the place make any mention of Church-power , and Church government at all ? Or is there so much as one word that looketh that way ? If there be , let our Brother say that we seeme to ●each as he doth report ; but if there be not , we are sorry he should report us to teach o● seeme to teach , that which to our remembrance we never said nor thought . And sure it is , we have expresly said the direct contrary in page 7 , the Page next save one afore this which heere he is dealing against , where wee have these words , It seemeth to us ( say we ) that this power , viz. By disquisition and disputation to cleere up the rule ( and then to command Obedience thereto ) is not properly a power and exercise of government and Jurisdiction , but a power of Doctrine , and so a Synod is rather a teaching then a governing Church . These are our words in the Page afore alledged ; wherein we plainly expresse what the power of Synods seemeth unto us to be , even the direct contrary to that which he saith we seeme to make it ; wee on the one side affirming and expressing , that it seemes to us , the power of a Synod is no power of government and Iurisdiction , but a power of Doctrine : And he on the other side reporting that we seeme to make the exercise of Dogmaticall power to be formally an act of Church-government , and so to place Church-government in the Synod . In which report we must needs say , wee are plainly mis-reported .

His second answer is this . The last period and Conclusion of the controversie cannot be both in the Congregation by right only , and in the Synod by right only : For two last powers cannot be properly in two Subordinate Iudicatures .

Answ . This is very true , but it toucheth not us at all . For we never said the last period of the controversie is both in the Congregation only , and in the Synod onely . If we have so said , let the place be produced where we have said it ; for the place by him alledged doth afford us no such thing , nor any place else that we know of . All that the place affords concerning this point is only this , that there is a power of cleering the truth Dogmatically in a Synod , though not in a Synod only , but also in the Presbytery of a single Congregation . And this Doctrine I hope our Brother will not deny . But whether this power be last in the Synod , or in the Congregationall Presbytery , of this we do not speaks at all ; much lesse do we say as he doth apprehend and report , that this power is both last in the Synod and last in the Congregation too . Wherefore our defence in this particular must needs be this ; that what here he confuteth to be outs , is such a thing as never fell from our mouths or pens , nor for ought we know did never enter into our thoughts .

Thirdly , he saith . If a controversie concerne many Congregations as this doth Act. 15. I see not how a Congregation except they transgresse their line , can finally determine it .

Answ . Neither doth this touch us , except we had said that a Congregation may finally determine controversies which concerne many Churches , which yet we have not said . As for that controversie Act. 15. It is plaine from verse 2 , that Antioch did endeavour to have ended it amongst themselves , so far as they were troubled therewith . For some teaching that corrupt Doctrine amongst them , they had much disputation about the point afore they determined to send out for helpe elsewhere . Now to what end was thus much disputation , if they had no right to determine the matter ? might they not better have spared their paines ? Or did they not transgresse their line in attempting what they did attempt ? Sure it seemes they did , if they had not right to determine the matter . But for our part , sith we do not find them in the least reproved by the Holy Ghost for this attempt , therfore we cannot but think they did well therein . And thereupon it followeth , that if Antioch was a Congregationall Church ( as it seemes to us it was , from Act. 14. 27. ) either this controversie did trouble no Church but Antioch only , or else when a controversie or corrupt opinion doth trouble many Churches , one of them may lawfully determine and end it , so farre at it concernes themselves .

CHAP. V. Againe of that Assembly , Act. 15. Whether their rebuking the false teachers do prove a power of Iurisdiction and Excommunication in Synods : and whether Preaching doe prove the Assembly where it is , to be a Church .

THe new place where I find him excepting against the Answer , it in his Pag. 410. Where he proposeth an Object . to this effect , to wit. Paul exercised the Keyes of knowledge upon Barbarians , and might have Preached to Indians , and did to scoffing Athenians — yea Paul by this power Dogmaticall rebuked the Athenians , Act. 17. 22. Yet Paul had no power to Excommunicate the Athenians . And then he subjoyneth my name , and cites in the Margent the 43 , and 44 pages of the Answer .

Answ . This Objection being taken from Pauls rebuking the Athenians , our Brother had no reason to propose it under Mr. Tompsons 〈◊〉 and mine , for as much as in all that discourse of ours , the Athenians to my rememb●ance are not so much as once mentioned : sure in the Pages by him alledged there is no mention of the Athenians at all . And therefore why this Objection should bee proposed and reported by him as ours , wee doe not know . Which I doe not say , 〈◊〉 though I thought the objection so weake , as though the Authors of it may not well owne it . For from whosoever the Objection came , for ought that I yet perceive there is good weight therein . For which cause , and because in one of those Pages wee have delivered something concerning a Ministers power to Preach to Pagans in generall , ( though nothing concerning the Atheni●ns in particular , as hee reporteth ) therefore I am willing to consider what Mr. Rutherfor● saith , for the satisfying of the objection proposed , as not willing to passe by any thing without consideration , wherein our selves may seeme to be concerned or aymed at

I deny not saith he , but there is a great oddes betwixt a concionall rebuking by way of Preaching , which may be and is alwayes performed by one , and a juridicall rebuking by a power Jurididicall of the Keyes , which is performed only by a Church society .

Answ . If all this were granted , you the Objection is not satisfied , nor his purpose gained thereby . For the cleering whereof it is good to consider the thing in Question , and how this Objection comes in , and whereto it tends , and then we may better descerne how the objection is removed by Mr. Rutherfords answer : The thing in question is , whether a Synod have power of Iurisidiction and Excommunication . Mr. Rutherford his scope in that place is to prove the Affirmative ; and therefore for a dozen or 14 Pages together , hee hath these words in the top of every lease , The power of a Synod a power of Jurisdiction : and his medium to prove this Tenent is this ; Because a Synod hath Power to rebuke . Whereupon ensueth the Objection , that Paul might rebuke the Athenians and yet might not Excommunicate them ; and therefore enough a Synod may rebuke , it followes not that they may Excommunicate . This is the order of the Dispute , as is plainly to bee seeme by p●●●sing the place . And now comes in the Answer which Mr. Rutherford gives to the objection ; to wit , That there is a great odds betwixt a Concionall rebuking and a Juridicall , the one being performed by one , and the other by many ; Which Answer I conceive is not sufficient , because this Difference may hee granted and many more may be added if hee please , and yet the thing in question not gained , nor the Objection removed at all . For what though a Concionall rebuking be performed by one , and a Iuridicall by many ? Yet still it remaineth cleare , that there may bee rebuking where there is no Iurisdiction ; and therefore , though a Synod may rebuke , it followes not that they may Excommunicate , nor have power of Iurisdiction . If our Brother would have satisfied the Objection , he should not have satisfyed himselfe with alledging the difference mentioned betweene a Concionall rebuking , and a Iuridicall or Synodicall ; but should have proved that there cannot be any Concionall rebuking at all , at least wise not any rebuking of Athenians who are not subject to Excommunication , and if this had been proved , the Objection had been fully removed . But this he hath not proved at all , nor once attempted to prove it , but plainly yeelds the contrary ; and therefore for ought I see the Objection remayneth in its strength , and so the strength of his argument removed thereby , who would prove the Synod , power of Iurisdiction from their power of rebuking .

But let as heare what he answereth in the words ensuing .

It cannot be denyed saith he , but the rebuking of men because they subverted Soules , verse 24. Is not a meere Concionall rebuking which may be performed by one . First , it is a rebuking verse 24. Second , it is a rebuking performed by many , by a whole Synod , 6. 22. Third , it is performed by a politicall Society .

Answ , And what of all this ? May it not neverthelesse be denyed that this rebuking was any other then in a Doctrinall way ? Be it granted , that it was a rebuking , and a rebuking performed by many ; and if were granted by a Politicall Society too ; must it needs follow that therefore it was Iuridicall , or in way of Iurisdiction ? I see no necessity of such Consequence . Nay , Master Rutherford himselfe doth confesse ( as we heard afore ) in his Page 393. That the specification of this rebuke must not be fetched from the efficient causes , because one Apostle might himselfe alone have rebuked these obtruders of Circumcision . If therefore it were granted that many persons , a whole Synod , a Politicall Society , or what ever else he will call them , were the efficient causes of this rebuke , yet all this is too little to prove that the rebuke was Iuridicall , unlesse the specification of it must be fetched from the efficient causes , which Master Rutherford himselfe disclaymes .

Moreover , I would put this Case : suppose a Pagan or a Christian of another Nation and Kingdome , shall come into a Church Assembly , whether the Assembly be a Congregationall Church , or a Synod ; and in the Assembly shall openly and Scandalously misbehave himselfe in one kind or other , to the dishonour of God , and grieving of the godly , and the danger of corrupting others that shall behold such bad example . I would gladly know whether this Assembly be it Synod or other , may not lawfully rebuke this Scandalous practice and behaviour , and if they may , whether it would follow therupon that they may also lawfully Excommunicate the man , if his sin and impenitency shall deserve the same . If it be said they may , I would know : quo jure ? And who gave them such Authority to Excommunicate Pagans , or men of another Nation , being only there present at that time occasionally ? And if they may not so proceed against such a person , then the answer to Master Rutherfords alledgements in the Case we have in hand , is ready and plaine : For as he alledgeth , First , here is a rebuking . Second , a rebuking of many , even a whole Synod . Third , of a Politicall Society and Body ; even so the same may be said in this Case in all the particulars ; For first , here is a rebuking . Second , rebuking of many . Third , by a Politicall Society and body : and yet all this is too little to prove a power of Iurisdiction and Excommunication in the case proposed ; and therefore I see not how it can be sufficient to prove such a power in a Synod , for which purpose Master Rutherford brings it . Of necessity for ought that I see , one of these must be said , either that this Assembly have no power to rebuke the man , but must suffer his sin to be upon him , though God be dishonoured , and others endangered thereby ; or else it must be said they have power to Excommunicate him as well as to rebuke him ; ( neither of which I conceive can safely be said ) or if neither of these can be said , it must then follow that their may be power to rebuke , even in an Assembly of many persons , a Politicall Society ; and yet the same Assembly have no power at all to Excommunicate the persons so rebuked , and so this learned Brothers arguing is answered .

Likewise , I suppose it will not be denyed , but one Congregation if need so require , may rebuke and reprove another Congregation , though neither of them be Superiour to other , but both of them equall and Independant of each other in regard of subjection , Mr. Rutherf . confesseth , p. 294. That Congregations and Churches may admonish and rebuke each other , And sure it is , that Scripture , Cant. 8. 8. We have a little sister , what shall we do for her ? Doth shew that Churches ought to take care one for the good of another . And if they must take care and consult for one another , there is the like reason that they should reprove and admonish one another , as need shall require . Now when one Church doth so practise towards another , it cannot be denyed , but here are the same things which Mr. Rutherford speakes of , First , a Rebuking Second , a rebuking performed by many . Third , a rebuking performed by a Politicall Society and Body . But can any man inferre from hence , that the Church thus rebuking another Church hath power to Excommunicate that other Church ? I suppose none will affirme it . And if this may not be affirmed , I do not see how rebuking performed by many even by a whole Synod , can be any sufficient ground to prove that the Synod hath power to Excommunicate .

The Apostles and Elders ( saith our Author ) are not considered here as meerely Preachers and teachers in the act of teaching ; for why then should they not be formally a Church Assembly , if they be an Assembly meeting for Preaching the word ? Pag. 411. 412.

Answ . When the text Acts 15 , doth mention sometimes the Multitude , verse 12. Sometimes the Brethren , verse 23. Sometimes the whole Church , verse 22. Besides the Apostles and Elders , we know no absurdity in it , if one should say , here was formally a Church and a Church Assembly ; in which Church-assembly the Apostles and Elders were teachers and Preachers , though they alone were not the Church . Yet though wee thinke heere was a Church , and a Church-assembly ; wee do not thinke Mr. Rutherford reason doth prove them so to be . For Paul and S●las were Preachers of the word in the Prison at Philippi , Act 16. And at Mar●hill , and the Market-place at Athens , Act. 17. And yet we thinke it hard to inferre thence , that these Assemblies were formally Churches .

Yea but saith our Author , the exercise of the Keyes of knowledge in the hearing of a multitude , is essentially an act of Preaching of the Word , Page 412.

Answ This is very true indeed , an act of Preaching the word it must needs bee , the word Preaching being taken in its utmost Latitude . But is not unavoidably and alwayes a Church-act , or an act that infallibly proves the Assembly , where such an act is performed , to be formally a Church ? This is the thing that should have been cleered , or else the thing is not cleered ; But this our Reverend Author doth not cleere at all ; and the contrary is very plaine from sundry instances in the Acts , where the Apostles did exercise the Key of knowledge in the hearing of multitudes in sundry places , where yet for all this there was not forthwith any Church ; and therfore , whereas he saith , The Apostles and Elders are not considered in this Assembly as Preachers and teachers in the act of teaching , because then the Assembly should have been formally a Church , We rather thinke they that shall consider it will find that the Apostles did , and other Elders in these dayes may put forth the act of teaching and Preaching in some Assemblies ( suppose Assemblies of Turkes and Indians ) and yet the Assemblies not thereby proved to be Churches .

CHAP. VI. Whether the power of Synods be a power of Iurisdiction ; and of the dependance of the Synagogues upon the Synedrion at Jerusalem .

NExt of all , in his Page 414 in a 16 . th Objection in this and the former Page he saith thus , Therefore was the Synagogue of the Jewes no compleat Church , because all the Ordinances of God cannot be performed in the Synagogue : and therefore , were the Jewes commanded only at Ierusalem , and in no other place to keepe the Passeover and to offer Offerings and Sacrifices which were ordinary worship : but there is not any worshiper Sacred Ordinance ( saith that worthy Divine Dr. Ames ) of Preaching , Praying , Sacraments , &c. prescribed , which is not to be observed in every Congregation of the new Testament , — and then he subjoyneth Mr. Tompsons Name and mine ; and in his Margent cites the Answer , Page 12 , 13. And further saith in the Objection , That others say because there was a representative worship of Sacrificing of all the twelve Tribes at Ierusalem , therefore all the Synagogues were dependant Churches , and Ierusalem the Supreame and highest Church .

Answ . To leave what is alledged a● Objected by others , and to consider only of that which concernes our selves . Because the Synagogues in Israel were dependant on the great Synedrion at Ierusalem , therefore some would inferre that Congregations in these dayes must be dependant on the Iurisdiction of Synods . To this Argument we are endeavouring to give answer in the place alledged by Mr. Rutherford , where we shew that the Synagogues might be dependant and not compleat Churches , because the Sacred Ordinances of God which were of ordinary use , could not be performed in them ; but Congregations in these dayes compleat and intire as having liberty to enjoy the use of all the Ordinances within themselves : for both which particulars we alledge the testimony and words of Dr. Ames . The summe is thus much : If the Synagogues could not enjoy all the Ordinances within themselves , and our Congregations may , then though the Synogogues were dependant on the Synedrion at Jerusalem , it will not follow that Congregations in these dayes must be dependant on Synods . This is the 〈◊〉 of that which is said in the answer : in the place which Mr. Rutherford alledges .

Now what answer doth he returne to this passage ? Truly none at all that I can find . None will you say ? How can that be ? Doth he not propound it in his 16 . th Objection , as that which he undertakes to answer ? I confesse he doth so , but neverthelesse all that he hath set down for answer is wholly taken up and spent in two other things , the Objection which he proposeth as ours , being wholly left untouched . Those two things are these ; the one an answer to another passage of ours in another place of the answer , the other an answer to the last part of his Objection , which himselfe doth acknowledge to bee the saying of others , and not ours ; and therefore hee brings it in thus viz. Others say , because there was a representative worship , &c. by those words , Others say , plainly declaring that what he thus expresseth , proceedeth not from us , but from others . And so though he returne answer to this saying of others , and to another saying of ours which we have written elsewhore , yet for this of ours which he proposeth in this h●s Objection , I find no answer thereto at all . And therefore I thinke the thing remaines as it was , unlesse wee shall take his meere proposing of it for a satisfying answer , which we see no reason to do .

Neverthelesse , though he turnes away from this passage of ours without returning any answer thereto , yet there is another which he applies himselfe more directly against , and therefore to this sixteenth Objection hee begging his answer thus , Surely the aforesaid Reverend Brethren of New-England have these words , but it seemeth to us the power ( of a Synod ) is not properly a power and exercise of government and Iurisdiction , but a power of Doctrine , and so a Synod is rather a Teaching then a governing Church : from whence ( saith he ) I inferre , that our Brethren cannot deny a power of governing to a Synod , but it is not so proper governing as Excommunication and Ordination performed in their Congregations ; but say I , it is more properly governing as to make Lawes and rules of governing is a more Noble , Emin●nt and higher act of governing ( as is evident in the King and his Parliament ) then the execution of ●hese Lawes and rules .

Answ . So then , th●se former words of ours proposed in the Objection , are wholly forsaken and left , and instead of answering them , he fals as we set upon other words which we have written elsewhere , and applies himselfe to deale against those other . By which dealing the considerate Reader may judge whether the former words being thus handsomly forsaken and left , do not still remaine in their strength : and whether it had not been as good never to have proposed them at all in his Objection , as having proposed them to turne away directly and immediately from them unto other matters , without returning one word of answer to the former . The wise in heart may consider what this doth import .

But sich he is pleased to acquit the former and to apply himselfe to the other , let us therefore leave the former in its strength and unshaken , and consider of what he saith in this other .

Wherein when he speakes of making Lawes and rules of governing , either he me●nes this making Lawes and rules properly so called , or else he meanes it onely of a Ministeriall power to cleere up the Lawes and rules of Christ , and in his name to com●and obedience thereto . And it seemes by the instance which he gives of the King and his Parliament , that he intends the former sence . And if so , then the answer is that this Noble , Eminent , and high act of governing as he cals it , doth not belong to any Synods upon earth , but only to the Lord Iesus Christ in Heaven , the Script●res abundantly witnessing , that he only is the Lord and Law giver to his Church , L●● . 4. 12. Isa . 33. 22. For the cleering of which point , much needs not to be said , considering that this learned Brother himselfe doth elsewhere directly and in expresse termes co●fesse as much as we desire in this matter . For in one place speaking in one place of a Power to prescribe rules and Lawes , he doth not only distinguish them from Lawes p●operly so called by the word Directive , calling them directive Lawes , but also for further explaining his Mind , annexeth these words . They are not properly Lawes which the Church prescribeth : Christ is the only Law-giver : Due Right , Page 395. And in the page following speaking of a Societies or a Synods power of making Lawes , he addeth for explanation thus , I take not here Lawes for Lawes properly so called , but for Ministeriall directories , having Ecclesiasticall Authority . So then the Church or the Synod hath no power at all to make Lawes properly so called , for Christ ●s the onely Law giver : And if so , then the governing power of Sy●ods which our brother would prove by this Noble and Eminent and high power of making Lawes is not proved thereby at all , in as much as this Noble and eminent power of making Lawes doth not belong to any Synods upon earth , but to Christ only . And this may be an Answer to what he saith or a Synods power to make Lawes , it Lawes be taken in their proper sense .

But if he intend not this sense and meaning in the place we are speaking of , but only the latter , viz That Synods have power to cleere up the Lawes and rules of Christ , and to command obedience thereto , then I confesse the answer in the 7 . th page thereof doth acknowledge such power to belong unto Synods , but how this can prove their Power of Iurisdiction and government properly so called , which Mr. Rutherford would thence inferre , we for our parts do not yet perceive . For the power here described is but a meere Doctrinall power , and we have given sundry instances in the Answer , Pag. 43. 44. To shew that there may be a power by way of Doctrine to cleere up the rules and Lawes of Christ , and to command obedience thereto , where yet there is no power by way of Iurisdiction and Discipline to punish the breach of those rules ; which instance , this Reverend brother doth not satisfie at all . And therefore though Synods have power to cleere up the rules and Lawes of Christ , and to command obedience thereto ( which power we deny them not ) yet that which he from thence would inferre , that they have also a power of government and Iurisdiction , doth not follow from thence at all , unlesse we shall say , that Doctrine and Discipline , Doctrine and Iurisdiction or government are the same .

Briefly thus : a power of mak●ng Lawes properly so called is a Noble and Eminent kind of government , but this power doth not belong unto Synods , but to Christ . A power of cleering up Christs Lawes , and commanding in his name obedience thereunto doth belong unto Synods , but this is no power of Iurisdiction and government , but a Ministeriall power of Doctrine , and so still our Tenent doth stand , that a Synod if it may be called a Church , is rather a teaching then a governing Church .

Secondly , saith our Author , Our brethren incline to make a Synod a teaching Church .

Answ . We never yet absolutely yeelded that a Synod might be called a Church , 〈◊〉 on the contrary , Wee have said , that unlesse it could be proved that in Scripture the name of a Church is given to a Synod , we are not to be blamed though we give not a Synod that name . Answ . Pag. 1. The most that we have yeelded in this point is this , that for the name we will not contend , and that if a Synod may be called a Church , then sith they have Power by disputation to cleere up the rule , they are rather a Teaching then a governing Church . Answer Pag. 1. & 7. This is all we have said , and we desire our words may not be stretched beyond our intent and scope therein . But let us heare what our Brother would hence inferre .

I inferre , saith he , that Synodicall teaching by giving out Decrees , tying many Churches , as our brethren of New-England and the forenamed Authors teach , is an Ordinance of Christ , that can be performed in no single Congregation on earth , for a Doctrinall Cannon of one Congregation can lay any Ecclesiasticall tye upon many Churches , Ergo by this reason our Congregations shall be dependant as were the Jewish Synagogues .

Answ . When he saith the Brethren of New-England and the Authors of the Answer do teach a Synodicall teaching by giving out Decrees tying many Churches , and aledgeth for proofe in his Margent , Answ . 7. to 32. q. 9. 14. page 43 , 44. and Answer to Mr. Herle , Chap. 4. Pag. 40. 41 with favour of so learned a man , wee must returne this Answer , that neither of the palces alledged will make good his purpose , in as much as neither of them doth make any mention at all of the thing which he reports them to teach , viz. Such Synodicall teaching as gives out Decrees tying many Churches . Let the places be viewed and the thing will be found as I say . And therefore how they can be said to teach that which they neither teach nor mention , doth surmount my ability to conceive . If the Reader would know what it is that is taught in the places , it is no more but this , that in some Cases it is requisite that Churches should seeke for light and Counsell and advice from other Churches , as Antioch , did send unto Ierusalem in a Question which they wanted ability to determine amongst themselves , and that there ought to be Synods , and that we thinke that meeting Act 15. might be such an one . The first of these is taught in the form●● of the places , and the other in the other . But for giving out Synodicall Decrees tying many Churches , this same be it within the power of Synods or otherwise , is 〈◊〉 taught at all in either of the places , except wee shall say ( which we thinke were unreasonable ) that there can be no Synods , nor consulting of other Churches for light and Counsell and advice , but there must be in those other Churches so consulted withall , a power to give out binding Decrees , yea Decrees that shall bind or tye many Churches . We thinke this latter doth no wayes necessarily follow upon the former ; and therefore though the places alledged do speake to the former , yet the latter which this Author reports them to teach , they do not teach at all .

Secondly , I Answer further , that if such a Doctrine were indeed taught in the places by him alledged or any other , yet the inference which he would thence bring in , That then our Congregations shall be dependant as were the Iewish Synagogues , Th●s same doth not follow at all : and the reason is , because the Synagogues were dependant on the Supreame Synedrion not only for light and Counsell , no nor only for Doctrinall Cannons or Decrees , but also for Iurisdiction and Discipline , that Synodrion being their supreame Court , to whose sentence they were all bound under paine of Death to submit , as is cleere , Deut. 17. 11 , 12. And therefore if it were granted ( which yet we do not see proved ) that Synods may give out Decrees and Doctrinall Cannons , that shall tye many Churches , it doth not follow that our Congregations shall therefore be dependant as were the Iewish Synagogues , except it were also proved that they must depend upon Synods in point of Iurisdiction and Discipline , as well as in point of Doctrine , yea and so depend as that the sentence of those Synods must be obeyed under paine of death . Sure the Synagogues and every member of them were in this sort dependant upon the Supreame Synedrion : but we hope 〈◊〉 Reverend brother will not say that Congregations must in this sort be dependant upon Synods . At the least wise this we hope he will not deny , that every member of a Church is bound to depend upon the Pastor of that Church in point of Doctrine ; and yet it will not follow that he must depend upon one Pastor alone in point of Iurisdiction and D●scipline . And the reason is , because Doctrine may be dispenced by one Pastor alone , but Discipline must be dispenced by a Church , which one Pastor alone cannot be . And therefore if Congregations were to be dependant upon Synods in point of Doctrine , it would not follow that they must bee dependant in point of Iurisdiction and Discipline .

Thirdly , saith he , It is a begging of the question to make Ierusalem the Supreame Church and the Synagogues dependant Churches ; because it it was lawfull only at Ierusalem to Sacrafice ; for I hold that Ierusalem was a dependant Church no lesse then the smallest Synagogues in all their Trybes . And so he proceedeth largely , to shew that sacrificing at Ierusalem did not make Ierusalem Supreame .

Answ . It this were even so as is pleaded , yet that which we have said of the compleatnesse of the Synagogues and of their dependancie is not at all removed thereby : and the reason is , because we do not make the Synagogues dependant nor Ierusalem supreame , meerely upon this ground , because Ierusalem alone was the place of Sacrificing , but this is the ground upon which chiefly we go , that at Ierusalem was the Synedrion upon whom all Israell must depend for judgement , and from whose sentence there was no appeale , which ground wee still thinke doth prove both the incomplearnesse of the Synagogues , and the supremacie of the Synedrion , and the contrary to this must be cleered if our Tenent in this matter be removed . True it is , we thinke it some argument of the Synagogues incompleatnesse and imperfection that they were not permitted to enjoy all the Ordinances which were of ordinary use : but the supremacie of Ierusalem we do not place in this only , that there was the place for Sacrifice but in this withall that the supreame Iudicatory was there , upon which all Israell must depend , and from the which there must be no appeale . And yet this supremacie we do not place in Ierusalem considered a part from the Synedrion , but in the Synedrion it selfe .

And therefore , whereas he saith , Pag. 415. That we might as well conclude that all the Cities and Incorporations of England are dependant upon London , inasmuch as the Parliament useth there to sit , I conceive the comparison doth not sute , because as we do not place the supremacie in London or in Westminster , considered apart from the Parliament , but in the Parliament which useth there to sit , so we place not the supremacie amongst the Iewes in Ierusalem considered apart from the Synedrion , but in the Synedrion it selfe , which was there seated . But because our Reverend brother in the latter end of this 16 . th Objection bringeth in this particular of Ierusalems supremacie by reason of the Sacrifices , with Others say , therefore I conceive he intends not us therein , but some body else , and therefore I will proceed to the next wherein our selves are concerned .

CHAP. VII . Whether the lawfulnesse or necessity of Appeales doe prove a superiority of Iurisdiction in Synods over Congregations , and of sundry sayings of our Author which seeme to interfere .

IN his page 422. he propounds a 19 . th Objection to this effect , If the Government of consociated Churches be warranted by the light of Nature , then this light of Nature being common to us in civill as in Ecclesiasticall causes , it will follow that every City governed with rulers within it selfe ▪ must be subordinate to a Classe of many Cities , and that Classe to a Nationall meeting of all the Cities : and the Nationall government to be a Catholike or Oecumenicke civill Court — . And because by the same light of Nature there must bee some finall and supreame Iudgement of controversies , least Appeales should be spun out in infinitum , it must be proved that this supremacie lyeth not in a Congregation . And in the Margent he citeth Mr. Tompson and my selfe in page 16 and page 10 , of the Answer , as Authors of this last bassis in the O●ectjection .

Answ . It is true that in one of those pages alledged we speake to the like purpose as here is reported . For we there suppose it to be cleere by the light of Nature , that there must be some finall and supreame judgement of Causes , and that unlesse it be determined where that supremacie doth lye , ( which we account the very thing in question ) we say the usefulnesse and necessity of Appeales may be granted , and yet we shall be still at uncertainty about the thing in question , and as much to seeke as before , because that there ought to be appeales til you come to the highest is one thing , and that a Synod and not a Congregation is the highest is another . To this purpose we have written in one of those Pages , the summe whereof is this much ; that though the usefulnesse of Appeales till you come to the highest be granted , yet the supremacie of Synods over Congregations in matter of Iudicature is not concluded thereby .

Now what doth our Reverend Brother returne in his Answer ? Doth he prove the contrary to what is here affirmed by us ? Doth he cleere it sufficiently , that if it bee once granted that there must be Appeales till you come to the highest , then the supremacie of Synods over Congregations must inevitably follow ? I conceive the necessity of this consequence had need to be cleered , if that which we have said be sufficiently answered . But doth our Brother cleere this ? Or doth he so much as once attempt the cleering thereof ? Surely to speake freely what I find , I find nothing that looketh that way , and therfore cannot but wonder why our opinion should be alledged in this Objection , and so his Reader be led into expectation of some sufficient Answer thereto , and then the answer which he returnes to be taken up in other matters , our opinion proposed in the Objection , being wholly in his Answer left untouched . If that saying of ours be not sound , why doth he not returne some answer ? If it be sound and good , why doth he make an Objection of it , and so breed an apprehension in weake Readers of its unsoundnesse , and put them in hope of a confutation , when no such thing is performed ? I leave it to the wise in heart to consider what this doth argue .

Neverthelesse , let us consider of what he doth returne for Answer , Page 423. First he saith , Appeales being warranted by the Counsell which Iethro gave to Moses — cannot but be naturall ?

Answ . Suppose this be so , what can there be concluded hence , that makes against us ? cannot appeales be Naturall , but the supremacie of Synods over Congregations must needs follow ? If there must be an highest , must it needs be yeelded that the Synod and not the Congregation is that highest ? I conceive this needs not to be yeelded at all , and therefore though Appeales be Naturall , I see not what is gained thereby .

Againe , he saith , God hath appointed that the supremacie should lye within the bounds of every free Monarchy or State , so that there can be no Appeale to any Oecumenicall or Catholike civill Church , for that is against the independant power that God hath given to States .

Answ . Let this be granted also , and are we not still where we were before ? Is there in this any thing at all that doth make for the removall of our opinion , as himselfe hath see it down in his Objection ? We may truly say we see it not .

No , nor in that which doth follow , viz. But in the Church it is farre otherwise , for God hath appoynted no vissible Monarchy in his Church , nor no such independency of policie within a Congregation , Classicall Provinciall or Nationall Church .

Answ . For that which is said of a visible Monarchy in the Church , I confesse it is true , God hath appointed none such . But for the rest , of these words , sith they containe an expresse denyall of the supremacie of all Ecclesiasticall Iudicatures , except it be the generall Councell , I would gladly know how our Tenent afore expressed is disproved , or how the necessity of that Consequence afore mentioned is at all cleered hereby . If there be no independencie of policie in Congregations , nor yet in any Synods exc●pt it be the Oecumenicall , doth this prove that the supremacie doth lye in Synods and not in the Congregation ? Nothing lesse : for how can our Brother prove that it lyes in the one and not in the other , by saying as here he doth , that indeed it lyes in neither ? Or how is that Consequence made good , that if there must be appeales till we come to the highest , then the Synod is the highest ? How is this I say made good by affirming , that neither the Congregation nor the Synod is the highest ? For my part I must confesse it passeth my understanding to conceive , how the denying of a thing should be the proving and cleering thereof . And yet except this be admitted , I know not how our apprehension in the matter we have in hand is at all disproved . For whereas we say , Appeales may be granted and yet the supremacie of Synods over Congregations will not follow , Mr. Rutherford for the disproving of what wee apprehend herein , doth bring nothing in the place wee have in hand but only this , that the Supremacie doth neither lye in the Congregation nor in the Synod . Which is no disproving of us all , except as I said , that the denying of a thing may suffice for the confirming and cleering thereof . For I conceive if we be disproved the supremacie of Synods must be proved and cleered , which here our Brother doth not , but on the contrary denies the same .

Furthermore , if there be no independency of policie within a Congregation , a Classicall , Provinciall or Nationall Church , As here our Brother affirmeth , then what shall become of that which he tels us elsewhere , viz. Page 483. That that remedie of our Saviour , Tell the Church , is not needfull in any Church above a Nationall ? For sure if there be no independencie of policie in any of the lesser Churches , nor yet in the Nationall Church , one would thinke that of our Saviour should be needfull in some Church above the Nationall . Or if it be nor needfull in any Church above Nationall , then one would thinke there should be some indepencie of policie in the Nationall Church , or in some of the former . For my part I know not how this difficulty will be expedited , I meane how both these sayings of our Brother can stand good , except we shall say that which I suppose he will not say , viz. That independencie of policie is no where . And yet I cannot see but this must be said , if both the other sayings stand good ? For if independencie of policie be neither in the Nationall Church nor in any Church above it , nor in any Church below it , I know not where we shall have it .

Againe , if there be no independencie of policie in any of the Churches afore named , what shall we say to that passage where our Brother doth verily professe , That he cannot see what power of Jurisdiction to censure Scandals can be in a generall Councell , affirming further , that there might be some meerly Doctrinall power if such a Councell could be had , and that is all , Pag 482. For if there be no Independencie of policie in any Church below a generall Councell , one would thinke there should be in the generall Councill some power of Iurisdiction to censure Scandals , yea and an independant power too ▪ Or if there be not such power in the generall Councill , nor yet in the Nationall Church , nor in any Church below the Nationall , we must then say there is no independant Power of Iurisdiction to censure Scandals in any Church upon earth . Which latter if it be not owned , as I conceive our Brother will no● , I know not how the other two can both stand .

Though appeales be warranted both in Church and State by the light of Nature , yet appeales to Exotique and forraigne Judicatures is not warranted by any such light , but rather the contrary .

Answ . Let this be granted also , and are we ever a whit neerer to the point , then before ? Is this good arguing , appeales to exotique Indicatures are not warrantable , Ergo a Synod and not the Congregation is the supreame Iudicature ? Is this Consequence strong and cleere ? If it be not , how is our Tenent removed ? If our Brother intend it not for a removall thereof , why is it brought in for answer to an Objection proposed by himselfe as ours ?

Further , let this sentence be compared with the former immediately preceding , and more difficulties still arise . For in this he tels us we see , That appeales to forraigne Judicatures are not warrantable ; And in the other he tels us as wee heard afore , That there is no independencie of policie within a Congregation , a Classicall , Provinciall , or Nationall Church . Now to find how these things do agree , I am at a losse , for if there bee no independencie of policie in the Congregation , nor the other Churches mentioned , I should have thought , it might have been lawfull to have appealed from them to others . For why may there not bee appeales from them in whom no independen●ie of Policie is seated ? Yet now we are restrained from such appeales , for that all other Iudicatures are accounted forraigne and Exotique . So that of two sentences the one immediately following upon the other , the former tels us there is no independencie of policie in any of the Churches mentioned , which are Domesticque and neere , and the other tels us that other Churches are so Exotique and forraigne , that appeales to them are unwarrantable : and what to say for the reconciling of these things , I must confesse I find not .

I grant it is true , Appeales to Exotique and forraigne Iudicatures are not warrantable . But why are we not certified what Iudicatures are to be accounted Exotique and Forraigne ? For here I conceive lyes the pinch of the question ; and unlesse this be determined , the thing in question is still left at uncertainty . For as in civill states there are many Cities and Townes which have independent power within themselves , as Geneva , Strasburgh , Zuricke , Basill , and many others , and Appeales from any of these , though to the City or Town next adjoyning , would be to a Iudicature Exotique or forraigne , so some are apt to conceive the like of Congregationall Churches . And therefore it had need to be cleered that Appeales from such Churches is not to Exotique and forraigne Iudicatures ; for if this be not cleered , the unlawfulnesse of Appeales to forraigne and exotique Powers may be granted , and the question will remaine uncleered .

Church Appeales though warranted by the light of Nature , yet it is supposed they be rationall , and grounded on good reason , as that either the matter belong not to the Congregation , or then it bee certain or morally presumed the Congregation will be partiall or unjust , or the businesse bee difficill and intricate ; and if appeales be groundlesse and unjust , neither Christ nor Natures light doth warrant them . Yea in such case the supremacie from which no man can lawfully appeale , lyeth sometime in the Congregation sometime in the Classicall Presbytery , so as it is unlawfull to appeale for Illud tantum possumus quod jure possumus .

Answ . The short summe is thus much , that appeales are then lawfull when there is just ground and reason for them , otherwise they are unlawfull . Now first of all how doth this prove ( for we would still keep to the point ) the necessity of that Consequence whereof we speak afore , viz. That if appeales be lawfull , then there is a supremacie of Syno●s over Congregations . I conceive it is not proved hereby all ; but contrarily appeales may be granted lawfull , when there is just reason and ground for them , and yet the supremacie of Synods over Congregations is still uncle●red . Nextly , it still remaines a question , who must be judge of the reasonablenesse of the Appeale and of those cases that are put to shew when they are reasonable , viz. That the matter belongs not to the Congregation and the rest that are named : and unlesse it be cleered to whom it belongs to judge these things , we are still left at uncertainty , in the maine matter , viz. In whom the supremacie doth lye , from whom we may not appeale . For to say as our Reverend Author doth , That in some case the supremacie from which no man can lawfully appeale , lyeth in the Congregation , and sometimes it doth not : Appeales when they are grounded upon good reason are warrantable , else they are not : when the matter belongs not to the Congregation or the Congregation will be partiall and unjust , or when the businesse is diffic●ll and intricate , then we may appeale from the Congregation , else we may not , These things I say doe not cleere the matter at all , because still the question remaines who must be judge of these things , whether the party appealing , or the Congregation from whom , or the Synod to whom the appeale is made : and unlesse this be determined , the things mentioned alledged by our Brother do afford us small help in the matter for the cleering of it . And therefore , what we said in the Answer doth still for ought I see remaine sound , viz. That there must be some finall and supreame judgement that controversies may not by appeales after appeales be spun out in infinitum , and to determine where that supremacie doth lye , is the maine question , which unlesse it be determined , the usefulnesse of appeales may be granted , and yet we shall be still at uncertainty about the thing in question and as much to seeke as before , because that there ought to be appeales till you come to the highest is one thing , and that a Synod and n●t the Congregation is the highest is another . Now whether our Brother in that which we have hitherto heard have sufficiently cleered it unto us , that we may know where this supremacie doth lye , I leave it to the Iudicious to consider .

CHAP. VIII . Whether Antioch , Act. 15. Had right to have ended the controversie amongst themselves , if they had been able ; and whether their sending to Jerusalem for helpe , or their knowledge that other Churches were troubled with the like evill , or the party among themselves who were against the truth , doe prove the contrary . And of supremacy of power in Congregations .

BVt though our Author doe not cleere it to us where the supremacie doth lye yet in this pag 423 , and 424. He useth an argument from the practise of the Church of Antioch , Act. 15. And our own Doctrine concerning the same to prove that it doth not lye in the Congregation , which argument we are willing to consider . His words are those . That supremacie of power should bee in a Congregation without any power of appealing , I thinke our Brethren cannot teach . For when the Church of Antioch cannot judge a matter concerning the necessity of keeping Moses Law , they by Natures direction , Act. 15. 2. Decree to send Paul and Barnabas and others to Jerusalem , to the Apostles and Elders , as to an higher Judicature , that there truth may be determined : and then he addeth that Mr. Tompson and my selfe do teach that the Church of Antioch had jus , power to judge and determine the controversie , but because of the difficulty , had not light to judge thereof ( alledging for this in the Margent the answer , Chap. 4. Page 42. ) Ergo saith he , they must acknowledge Appeales by Natures light warrantable , as well as wee .

Answ . That appeales are warrantable , and warrantable by Natures light till we come to the supreame judicatorie , this we deny not , but have formerly yeelded no lesse . But for that our Brother here aymes at , viz. Appeales from a Congregationall Church ( as not being supreame ) to another Iudicatory , this we conceive is not proved by the example of the Church of Antioch , nor by any thing that we have written concerning the same And the reason it because Antioch had right and Authority to have ended the matter amongst themselves if ability had served thereto : and their sending to Ierusalem for helpe may argue want of agreement , or imperfection of light , but argues no want of Authority or right within themselves . For it is plain verse 2 , that Antioch did endeavour to have ended the matter amongst themselves , and had much disputation about it for that end , afore there was any speech of sending to Ierusalem . Now this endeavour doth argue their right ; for otherwise it had been sinfull , as being a presuming to do that which did not belong to them . This reason we have rendered afore in the place which our Author alledgeth , and he doth not at all remove it ; and therefore we are still of the same mind as before , that Antioch was not dependant upon the Iurisdiction of other Churches , but had independant power within themselves , as many may have who yet need the help of light from others , for their direction in using their power . Great Kings and Monarchs have received light from their Councellours without any impeac●ment of their independant power , which they have in themselves , and without any ascribing of that power to those their Counsellours . As we said in the place alledged , Antioch may send to Ierusalem for help , and yet this sending neither prove right of Iurisdiction in them who are sent unto , nor want of Iurisdiction in them who do send .

And therefore whereas our Brother saith , Antioch because of the difficulty of the controversie , had not light to judge thereof , Ergo we must acknowledge Appeales to be warrantable , We would rather argue thus , Antioch wanted light , Ergo Counsell and light is to be sought elsewhere ; and thus we conceive the inference will hold : but to say , Ergo there must be Appeales from the Congregation to others in matter of Iurisdiction , this we conceive will not follow at all . No more then it will follow , Kings or other supreame civill Rulers must seek light and direction from their Counsellours , Ergo there lyes an appeale from them to those Counsellours , which Consequence none will maintain nor affirme .

If the Scriptures had said that Antioch did never attempt to ●nd that controversie , as knowing that the ending thereof belonged not to them but to others : or if it had said , that the censuring of these obtruders of Circumcision had been performed by them of Jerusalem , and not by them of Antioch as not belonging to Antioch but to them of Jerusalem , then our Brother might have had some ground from Antioch to prove the necessity or warrantablenesse of appeales from Congregationall Churches to other Iudicatories : but such no such thing is said , we see not how this example can be any ground for the establishing of such appeales , or the taking away from Congregationall Churches their power of Iurisdiction within themselves .

Especially , wee see not how this our Brother can alledge the same for such a purpose , considering what himselfe hath written elsewhere in this learned Treatise of his wherein he examines that answer of ours . Two passages in his treatise I propound to consideration , which seeme to me to make for that independant or supreame power in Congregations , which here he is disputing against , the one is that which we touched before in his Page 413. Where he saith that Synods in case of neglect of Presbyteriall Churches are to command the particular Churches whom it concerneth , to do their dutie , as in other particulars there named , so in excommunication of offenders ; and further that the Synod , Act. 15. Is to remit the censure of Excommunication to the Presbytery of Antioch and Ierusalem , in case of the obstina●ie of these obtruders of Circumcision . Which I conceive is very truly spoken , and thereupon it followes that there was a supremacie of Iurisdiction in that Church of Antioch , and no necessity of appealing from them to the Iurisdiction of others . For ●ith the Synods are only to command the Churches to do their duty , and to remit the censure of offenders to the Churches themselves to whom the offenders belong , it plainly appeareth thereby where the supremacie of Iurisdiction doth lye .

The other place is in his Page 307. Where we have these words , viz. The power of Jurisdiction ordinary intensive and quo ad essentiam Ecclesiae Ministerialis , according to the intire essence of a Ministeriall Church , is as perfect and compleat in one single Congregation as in a Provinciall , as in a Nationall . Yea as in the Catholike visible body whereof Christ is the head . Now if there be such perfect & compleat power of Iurisdiction in a single Congregation , I know not how there can be such necessity of Appeales from them to the Iurisdiction of others as he is pleading for , nor how that supreame and independant power in Congregations can be denyed , which here he disputeth against . For let this compleat and perfect Power of Iurisdiction be acknowledged as due to such Churches , and appeales from them to other Iurisdictions will be of small necessity or use .

I know indeed this Reverend Author sayeth in the Page last mentioned , and within a few lines of the words which I have here alledged , That a Congregation is so a part of the Presbytery that it hath not a whole intire compleat intensive power over its own members to Excommunicate them — . And therefore the consociated Churches must have a power over the members of a Congregation . Which words I confesse seeme not well to agree with the former , because in the one intire compleat intensive Power is denyed to a Congregation , and in the other the Power of Iurisdiction , ordinary intensive , is said to be as compleat and perfect in the Congregation as in the great Churches . But it is not the latter words but the former which I do stand upon ; and by them ( as I conceive ) the supremacie of Congregations is established , and the necessity of appeales from them to other Iurisdictions is cleerely takes away . For if the Power of Iurisdiction be as intire perfect and compleat in the Congregation as in the greater Churches , as our Brother expresly affirmes it to be , I know not the reason why there must be appeales from the Iurisdiction of the Congregation unto the Iurisdiction of those other Churches . If the Power spoken of were more imperfect and incompleat in the Congregation , then it is in the other Churches , then there might be more reason or ●ayrer pretence for those appeales : but sith our Author confesseth it is no more intire compleat and perfect in these then in the Congregation , but as compleat and perfect in the Congregation as it is in the other , I am yet to seeke of a sufficient ground for the necessity of appeales from the Iurisdiction in a Congregation . For is it reasonable to appeale from one Iudicatory to another , and yet the power of Iurisdiction be as intire compleat and perfect in the former from which the appeale is made , as in the latter to which the cause is brought by such appeale ? It seemes by such appeales we are not like to be much helper , nor much to mend the matter above what it was before , and therefore the usefulnesse and necessity thereof is still uncl●●●● .

I thinke the Brethren erre in this to teach that Antioch had power to determine the controversie , Act. 15. When the Churches of Syria and Cicilia , to their knowledge were troubled with the like question as verse 24. may cleere , — I doubt much if they had power to determine a question that so much concerned all the Churches .

Answ . It is not cleere from verse 24. nor from any part of the Chapter as farre as I can find , that Antioch did know that other Churches were troubled with this question ; and if they had known it , I see nothing therein but they might notwithstanding lawfully end the matter so farre as concerned themselves . For when this question was started amongst them by such as came from Judea and taught this corrupt Doctrine at Antioch , the text is very cleere verse 2 , that they had much disputation amongst themselves to have ended the matter , afore there was any speech of sending to Ierusalem : which disputation is an argument that they had right to have ended it , if ability had no● been wanting .

And as for our Brothers reason for the contrary taken from their knowledge that the other Churches of Syria and Cicilia were troubled with the like question , there is not one word in the verse alledged to shew that Antioch had knowledge of any such matter , nor is Syria and Cicilia once mentioned therein : And though they be mentioned verse 23. Yet neither doth this verse declare that Antioch had any knowledge that this question had ever troubled those other Churches . Say it be true that indeed they had been troubled therewith , and that the Epistle from the Synod doth intimate no lesse , this may prove that when the Epistle came to be read at Antioch , then Antioch by this meanes might come to the knowledge thereof ; but all this doth not prove that Antioch knew so much afore . And therefore they might endeavour to end the matter amongst themselves , as not knowing for any thing our Author hath yet brought to the contrary , that any other Churches besides themselves were troubled therewith . But suppose they had known so much , I see nothing in this to hinder but Antioch might lawfully cleere up the truth in the question , and censure such of their Church as should obstinately hold and teach that false Doctrine , notwithstanding their knowledge that others had been troubled with the like Doctrine and teachers . Suppose a Christian family be troubled with lying Children , or servants , or such as are disobedient and undutifull in one kind or in another ; suppose they also knew that their neighbour families are troubled with the like , shall this knowledge of theirs hinder the Parents or Masters in such a family from censuring or correcting these that are under their government , according to their demerits ? If not , why shall Antioch be hindered from censuring offending members of their Church , only upon this ground because to their knowledge other Churches are troubled with the like offenders ? A City or Corporation is troubled with Drunkards , with theeves , or other vicious and lewd persons , and knoweth that other Cities or Corporations are troubled with the like : A Nationall Church , as Scotland for example , is troubled with obtruders of Ceremonies , Service booke , Episcopacie or other corruptions , and knoweth that England or other Churches are troubled with the like , shall Scotland now be hindered from removing these corruptions , and the obtruders of them from amongst themselves , only upon this ground , because England to their knowledge is troubled with the like ? Or shall the Corporation ●ee hindered from punishing theeves and such other malefactors , only for this reason , because to their knowledge other Corporations are troubled with the like lewd persons ? I suppose it is easie to see the insufficiency and invalidity of such Consequences ? And therefore if Antioch did know that other Churches were troubled with the like offenders , as themselves were troubled withall , this needs not to hinder but they may determine questions that arise amongst themselves , and may censure such of their members as shall trouble the Church or Brethren therewith , and obstinately persist in so doing .

This being considered withall , that in thus doing they do not go beyond their line , nor meddle with matters any farther but as they are within their Compasse . For when divers Churches are troubled with the like corruptions in Doctrine or practise , and some one of those Churches by using the Key of Doctrine or discipline or both , doth endeavour the removall of these corruptions , they do not hereby attempt and endeavour to remove them out of other Churches ( which might be an appearance of stretching their line beyond their compasse ) but out of their own Church , and only so farre as concernes themselves , and in so doing no man can justly say they meddle further then their Power doth reach .

But he gives another reason why Antioch had not right to determine the question , And this is taken from the strong party that was in Antioch against the truth , which was such as that they opposed Paul and Barnabas : concerning which he saith , that when the greatest part of a Church as Antioch is against the truth , as is cleere , Act. 15. 2. He beleeveth in that they loose their jus , their right to determine eatenus in so farre ; for Christ hath given no Ecclesiasticall right and power to determine against the truth , but onely for truth ; and therefore in this , Appeales must be necessary .

Answ . How is it cleere that the greatst part of the Church at Antioch was against the truth ? The text doth not say so much , but only this , that certain men which came from Iudea , taught the Brethren and said except ye be Circumcised ye cannot be saved , and that Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them about the matter , and that in the issue they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certaine others should go up to Ierusalem about the question : Thus much the Scripture witnesseth , Act. 15. 1 , 2. But whether they that held that corrupt Doctrine at Antioch were the major or the minor part of the Church , the text doth not expresse , except we shall say that where a false Doctrine is taught by some , and greatly opposed and disputed against by others , there it must needs bee that the greatest part are tainted with that false Doctrine , which wee thinke is no good Consequence . And therefore whereas our Author saith , the greatest part of this Church was against the Truth , and that so much is cleere from verse 2. I answer , first that I do not perceive this cleerenesse , neither from verse 2 , nor from any other place of the Chapter .

Nextly , suppose this were cleere , this may argue that they wanted ability and light to end the matter , but must it needs argue that they wanted right though they had been able ? Or shall we say that they who want ability to doe things as they should be done , do therefore want right to ●●al● in them at all ? I conceive it will not follow , and the reason is because this right in Churches is Naturall , or Connaturall to every Church , and this want of ability is only accidentall , and therefore this latter cannot totally hinder the former .

That light of government is Naturall or connaturall to every Church , our Brother own words do testifie Page 341. Where he saith this , viz. Supposing that Christ have a visible Church it is morall that she have power of government also , in so farre as she is a Church ; yea , power of government upon this supposition is Naturall or rather connaturall . And in Page 307 , he saith as was alledged before , That the power of Iurisdiction ordinary intensive — . Is as perfect and compleat in one single Congregation as in a Provinciall , or in a Nationall ; yea , as in the Catholike visible body whereof Christ is the head . And in Page 383. He saith , That to a Congregation Christ hath given by an immediate flux from himselfe a politicall Church power intrinsci●ally in it , derived from none but immediately from Iesus Christ : And the like he saith of a Presbyteriall Church . Now whether Antioch was a Congregationall Church as we hold , or a Presbyteriall as is holden by this our Brother , yet it is cleere by those words of his here alledged , that being essentially a Church ; it had a politicall Church power intrinscically within it selfe , yet a perfect and compleat power of Iurisdiction , yea and such a power as was naturall or connaturall unto her , as she was a Church . But now the light of knowledge whereby they should be enabled well to use this power , did not adde any power unto them which they had not before , not did the want of it , being but accidentall , deprive them of that Power , which was intrinscicall , essentiall and connaturall unto them as they were a Church of Christ . Onely this want did hinder their ability to expresse their power well , but their right as being a thing Connaturall did still remaine .

Our Brother hath a saying or two about the civill Power , which by proportion may well illustrate this that I am speaking o●●bo it the Church-power . In one place he saith thus , There is a two-fold power in a King , one in a King as a King , and this is a like in all , and ordinary regall , coactive : whether the King be an Heathen , a Turke , or a sound believing Christian : there is another power in a King as such a King , either as a Propheticall King as David and Solomon or as a Christian believing King. And of this latter he saith , that it is not a new regall power , but potestas execuliba , a power or gracious ability to execute the Kingly Power , which he had before as a King ; Page 387. &c. 388. ●ow why may it not be said in like sort , there is in a Church two-fold Power , one in a Church as it is a Church , and this is a like in all true Churches of Christ , whether the Church in this or that particular question have light to discerne , and hold the truth , or otherwise : another in a Church , as it is sound believing Church , holding the truth in such or such question ; and this is but only a gracious ability to exercise the power which they had before , not adding to them any new Power at all ? Againe , in his Page 393. he hath these words . Though the King were not a Christian Magistrate , yet hath he a Kingly power to command men as Christians , and it is by accident that he cannot in that state command Christian duties , and service to Christ ; because he will not , and cannot command those dutyes remaining ignorant of Christ ; even as a King ignorant of necessary civill dutyes cannot command them , not because he wanteth Kingly power to command these civill things , for undeniably he is a Iudge in civill things , but because he hath not knowledge of them . And may we not say in like sort , though a Church want the knowledge of the truth , in some particular question , yet they have a Church power to determine such questions , & to command obedience therein , and it is by accident they cannot in that state determine rightly , because they will not , being ignorant of the truth therein , not because they want Church-power to determine such matters , but because they have not the knowledge of them . Againe a little after in the same P. he tels us , That Christianity addeth no new fatherly power to a Father over his Children , nor giveth a new husband right to the husband , once an Heathen over his wife ; for an heathen Father is as essentially a Father over his Children as a Christian Father , and an heathen husband an heathen master &c. are all as essentially Husband , Masters , &c. as are the Christian husbands , masters , &c. And may we not as well say , soundnesse of knowledge in such or such a particular question addeth no new Church power to a Christian Church over their own members , nor giveth a new Church right over them which they had not before ; for a Church that wanteth such knowledge is as essentially a Church , invested with Church power over her members as is another Church ? For ought I perceive the cases are alike ; and if soundnesse of knowledge do not give to a Church their Church-right in this or that question , how can want of that knowledge deprive them of that right ? Sure one would thinke the whole substance of Christianity might do as much for the adding of Kingly right , Fatherly right , Husband right , &c. As soundnesse of knowledge in some one particular question , for the adding of Church right ; & that the want of all Christianity should be as available for taking away the Kingly right , the Fatherly right , &c. As the want of knowledge in one particular point for the taking away of Church-right ; and sith we have our Brothers own testimony cleer and full for the one , it seems to me the cases are so parallel and proportionable , that the other is unavoidable : I meane thus , sith in the one case the whole substance of Christianity doth not give power , nor the want thereof take away the same by our Brothers own teaching , I know not how in the other case soundnesse of knowledge in one particular question should give power or right , & want of such knowledge take away the same . And so for Antioch in particular , if it were as our Brother supposeth that the greater part of them did hold against the truth in that question about Circumcision , I see not how this could deprive them of their Church right which they had before .

As for our Brothers reason that Christ hath given no Ecclesiasticall right and power to determine against the truth , but onely for the truth , This saying I confesse is very true , but doth not suffice for the purpose for which hee brings it , viz. To prove that Antioch being ignorant of the truth in that question about Circumcision , or holding against the truth therein did thereby lose their Church right to determine . For if this reason be good , then a man may conclude against that power in heathen Kings , Parents , and Husbands , to governe their Subjects , children and Wives ; which our Brother , as we heard afore , hath granted and taught : For suppose that Antioch were ignorant of the truth in that particular is it not cleere that the Kings , Parents , and Husbands mentioned are ignorant of the truth in many more matters ? And it Antioch do hereupon loose their right , because Christ hath given no power to determine against the truth but for the truth , how will it be avoided but by the same reason , ●he Kings and the others mentioned must likewise lose their right to governe their own subjects and families ? For the Lord gives no right , I hope , to Pagans against the truth , no more then he doth unto Churches . And therfore if the reason be valid and strong in the one case , and for the purpose , for which our Brother brings it , it seemes to be as strong in the other case also , which shall be contrary to what our Brother himselfe doth teach .

In a word ▪ Churches and Antioch in particular have right to determine questions , and they ought to determine only according to the truth : They have formally a right to determine , and when their determinations are according to truth , then they will ●ind Vi mat●●i● which else they will not . They have right to determine in fore Humano , and if their determinations be for matter agreeable to truth , they will be ratifyed in foro Div●●o , but not else . Now our Brothers arguing doth seeme to confound these two ; and because of the latter which is freely granted , he would conclude against the former , which we thinke is not good reasoning ; but on the contrary do still thinke , that though Churches ought to give out no determinations but such as are agreeable to truth , and that otherwise their determinations , in respect of the matter of them will not bind before God , yet for all this they may have right formally and in Foro humano to judge , and to determine of such things .

Moreover , if this were granted for true , that Antioch when they are against the truth do lose their right to determine Controversies , yet we are not hereby much neerer to an issue , unlesse it be determined withall who must be judge whether they be against the truth or no , and the reason is because if they be not against the truth but for it , then I hope , it will be granted that they doo not lose their right at all . The question therefore still remaines , who hath this Ministeriall Power to Iudge whether this or that Church , Antioch or any other be against the truth or for it ; and unlesse this be cleered we are but where we were before .

But to draw towards an end of this passage about the Church of Antioch : whether they had right to determine Controversies when ability failed , or whether they did when lose that right , I will here transcribe a few words of our Brother as I find them in his second , 331. Page . Wherein he either cleerely yeeldeth the cause , and saith the same that we do or I am much mistaken . The words are these , There is a difference between ability to judge , and right or power to judge . A presbyteriall Church , ( and he disputeth in six Pages together to prove Antioch such a one , Page 470. 471. &c. sequ . ) may have right , jus , and Ecclesiastic●ll law to judge of a point , to the judging whereof they want ability : therefore de facto , it belongeth to an higher Synod where more learned men are , though de jure the Presbytery may judge it . These words I wish to be well considered . For whereas in the place we have been speaking of , he saith Antioch , the greater part of them being against the truth , did lose their jus , their right to determine , for which as wee have heard , he gives this reason , because Christ hath given no right and power to determine against the truth but for it , yet now wee see he grants distinction between ability and right , and saith , a Presbyteriall Church may still retaine this latter of their right , even then , when they want the other of ability . Which two sayings whether they do perfectly agree , and whether in the latter of them he do not plainly come up to us , against whom he hath been disputing in the former , I leaue it to the wise in heart , and especially to himselfe to consider . For , for my part I must confesse that these two sayings , A Presbyteriall Church as Antioch may have right , jus to judge a point , to the judging whereof they may want ability ; and , Antioch a Presbyteriall Church wanting ability did thereby lose their right , or jus to determine the point , these two I say , are such sayings as are not easie for me to reconcile .

Lastly , if it be said our Brother doth not deny unto Antioch , or a Church in error all power simply to determine , but only to determine tali mode , that is , to determine against the truth ; for his words are , they lose their jus their right eatenus , in so far . I answer , he hath such a word indeed , as eatenus , in so farre : but if any shall say he meant no more in this dispute , but only that such a Church hath no right to determine against the truth , I conceive that he that shall so say , shall therein impute some fault unto our Brother , even the fault of wresting Mr. Tompsons Tenent and mine , and suggesting against us unto his Reader , as if we had held such a thing as we never wrote nor thought . For it is plain , that our Brother in his Pag. 424. is disputing against us ; For he saith , that we teach the Church of Antioch had jus , power to judge and determine the controversie , but because of the difficulty had not light to judge thereof , And sets down Master Tompsons name and mine as the men that so teach , in Answer , Page 42. And a few lines after he saith , I thinke the Brethren erre in this , to teach , that Antioch had power to determine the Controversie , Act. 15. And then hee gives two reasons for the contrary . So that it is manifest that he intends this dispute against us . Now what have we said in this matter ? Have we delivered any such thing , that Antioch had right to determine against the truth ? Let the Answer be viewed in the place which he alledgeth , viz. Page 42. And I am sure no such grosse Tenent will be there found , no nor any where else in our writing . That which we have said , is this , that Antioch had right to have determined the matter if ability had served thereto : but for right to determine against the truth , we never spake one word that soundeth that way . Our Brother therefore intending this dispute against us , and plainly expressing so much , and our Tenent being no other then as I have said , it must therefore needs follow that his intendment is , that Antioch had no right to determine that matter . But for right to determine against the truth , he cannot confute such a Tenent as ours , we never having delivered any such thing , but he must withall be culpable of manifest mistaking and mis-reporting of us to the World ; and we are , and must be slow to believe that a man of such worth would willingly do us such wrong . It remains therefore , that right to determine and not right to determine against the truth , is the thing which he oppos●t● as ours , and therefore it is that in this sence and meaning I have here applyed my answer .

The 〈…〉 thus much ; That Antioch had right to determine against the 〈…〉 that may soone be con●uted , but the Tenent is none of ours : That 〈…〉 to determine , is indeed our Tenent , and whether this be con●uted 〈…〉 , let the wise and Iudicious consider .

CHAP. IX . Whether the Congregationall way or the Presbyteriall doe make the Gospell more difficultive then the Law. Of Excommunication by a Church that hath only three Elders , and of doing things sudainly .

IN the latter end of his Page 424 meaning Mr T●mpson and me , and alledging Page 17 , 18. of the Answer . He writes that we say our opposites do much Judaize in that they multiply appeales upon appeales , from a Congregation to a Classis , then to a Synod , then to a Nationall Assembly , then to an Oec●●●●nicke Councell ; and this way while the world endureth causes are never determined , and Synods cannot alwayes be had ; even as in Ierusalem the supreame Iudicature was farre remote from all Proselites , as from the Eunuch of Ethiopia , Act. 8. And from the remote●● parts of the Holy Land : but God hath provided better for us in the new Testament , where every Congregation which is at hand may decide the Controversie : And then , Page 425. He subjoyneth his Answer .

Answ . Though I deny not but some of the things here alledged are written by us in the Pa●●● nam●d , yet that they are written for the purpose which our Brother expresseth , viz. To shew that our Brethren of the opposite judgement do much Iudaize , that I do utterly deny . For the places being viewed will plainly witnesse that wee bring the things alledged for another end , viz. To shew whether the way that is called Independencie , do make the people ( as some have thought of it ) more defective and improvident then their Law. For this being objected against that way , wee in answer thereto do shew by sundry particulars , that it is not that way that is justly culpable in this respect , but the way of our Brethren of the other Iudgement ; one way on the one side making the state of Christians in these dayes in some things equall to the Iewes , and in other things more excellent ; and on the other side the way of our Brethren making our condition in many things more defective then was the condition of the Iewes . So that ( not Iudayzing but ) making our condition more defective then the Iewes , is the thing which we here note in the Doctrine of our Brethren . Nor do I see how our Brother in his Answer doth free their Doctrine and way from being justly culpable in this respect . If we had intended the thing which he reporteth , we would never have used such a reason as he truly report● us to use , viz. That by appeales upon appeales causes according to our Brethrens way may be so protracted as never to be determined nor ended . For this reason hath neither strength nor colour of strength for such a purpose , as he saith we bring it for , inasmuch as it is well known , that the Iewes had a supreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of causes among them . And therefore to say that our Brethren do Iudaize , and then to give that for a reason which doth shew that the Iewes and they are very unlike , the Iewes having a supreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of Cruses , and they having none , were to shew our selves very irrationall or worse : end why our Brother should put such a thing upon us , we being no wayes guilty thereof , we do not know . But we desire that our reason may be applyed to our own conclusion , to which we did and do apply it , and not to this other expressed by our Brother , which indeed is none of ours , and then we are content that rationall and judicious Readers may judge whether or no there be any sufficient weight therein . Which that they may more readily do , I have here recollected the same into this short summe , that they may briefly behold it with one view , viz If the Iewes had a supreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of causes , and the Congregationall way hath the like : If the Iewes had a standing Iudicatory alwayes in readinesse for the hearing of causes , and the Congregationall way hath the like : and if the supreame Iudicatory among the Iewes was very farre remote from many of them , and in the Congregationall way be more convenient and neere at hand , then the Congregationall way is in some things equall to the Iewes and in other things more excellent .

But the first is true in all the particulars , and therefore the second is true also . Againe , If the Iewes had a supreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of causes , and the way of our Brethren hath not : If the Iewes had a standing Iudicatory alwayes in readinesse for the hearing of causes and the way of our Brethren hath not : and if the supreame Iudicatory among the Iewes was very remote from many of them , and Synods among our Brethren are the same , then the way of our Brethren is in some things as defective as the Iewes , and in other things more defective then theirs .

But the first is true in all the particulars of it , and therefore the second is true also .

Both the Assumptions in all the branches thereof , I conceive are cleerely proved in the Answer in the Pages which our Brother doth alledge , and whether the Consequence be good let the wise judge .

Having thus reduced our Argumentation to its own proper and genuine shape , let us now consider of Mr. Rutherfords answer thereto .

First , saith he , The speedinesse of ending controversies in a Congregation is badly comprised with the suddainnesse and temerity of delivering men to Satan upon the decision of three Elders , without so much as asking advise of any Classes of Elders , and with deciding questions deepe and grave which concerneth many Churches , which is a putting of a private sickle in a common and publicke harvest .

Answ . If advise from other Churches may be had , we never spake word for doing weighty matters without the same , but in such cases it is both our practise and advise to make use thereof , And therefore this delivering men to Satan in way of temerity or rashnesse toucheth not us whose opinion and practise is other wise .

As for suddainnesse , I conceive if the same be sometimes accompanyed with temerity and rashnesse , and so worthy to be blamed , yet not alwayes : for in the Reformation of the House of God in the dayes of Hezekiah , it is said , that the thing was done suddainly . 2 Chron. 29. 36. Where suddainnesse doth not signifie any sinfull temerity or r●shnesle . But contrarily doth testifie Gods great goodnesle that had so prepared the people to so good a worke : for this cause this suddainnesse was to Hezekiah , and Gods people an occasion and ground of great joy and gladnesse , which temerity could not have been . And therefore suddainnesse and temerity must not alwayes be confounded and coupled together , as if they were the same .

Though hasty delivering of men to Satan without due consideration be not good , yet overlong delay of due proceeding against Delinquents is bad also , for the Holy Ghost tels us because sentence against an evill worke is not executed speedily , therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set to do evill , Eccl. 8. 11. For which cause execute judgement in the morning , that is to say speedily is sometimes expresly required , Jer. 21. 12. Which being spoken of justice to be executed by civill Authority doth hold by proportion and like reason in Ecclesiasticall censures , for as much as speedinesle is a duty , and delayes are daangerous in the one case as well as in the other .

Whereas our Author thinkes much that Excommunication should proceed upon the decision of three Elders , as we know nothing but a Congregation may have more Elders then the three , if God provide them fit men and the numerousnesse of the Congregation so require , in which case our Author saith nothing to the contrary , but they may have power to Excommunicate , so if they have but three , we know nothing in this , but they may have power to Excommunicate notwithstanding , since himselfe teacheth , Due Right . Page 61. That the Iewes had their Congregationall Churches as we have , and had their meeting in their Synagogues , not only for Doctrine , but also for Discipline and Excommunication ; Which if it be so , it seemes there might be Excommunication by as small a number as three , unlesse it could appeare that in every Synagogue the Elders and Rulers in it were a greater number then is here mentioned , which is more then I do remember to be expressed in Scripture . Yea and further he tels us , That the inferiour Iudicatures in Israel had power of life and death , Page 315. Now the Iudges in these inferiour Iudicatures though they must never be under that number of three , yet they did not alwayes exceed the same , for ought that doth appeare . And if three Iudges had power of life and death , why may not a Congregation with three Elders have power of Excommunication ? Moreover , in his Page 454. He gives us these words for a Proposition , That it floweth connaturally from a Church to which agreeth the essence of Church to exercise Jurisdiction over all its own members ; to which those words do also agree , Page 287. viz. The power and right to Discipline is a propriety essentiall to a Church and is not removed from it till God remove the Candlesticke , and the Church cease to be a visible Church : And in Page 302. Hee affords us these words for an Assumption , that a Congregation is a Church , wanting nothing of the being and essence of a Church : And hence the conclusion is obvious , that a Congregation may exercise Iurisdiction over all it own members : and in as much as a Congregation in which are but three Elders , is a Congregation , it followeth that a Congregation in which are but three Elders may exercise such Iurisdiction . This conclusion our Author cannot deny in as much as it necessarily and directly followeth from Premises which are both his own . Yea in his Page 302. H● saith , That this is a principle of Church policie , that every politicke body of Christ hath power of Church government within it selfe . Either therefore a Congregation with only three Elders is no politicke body of Christ , or else it must have power of Church government within it selfe . Besides , if the power of Iurisdiction ordinary intensive be according to the entire essence of a Ministeriall Church be as compleat and perfect in one single Congregation , as in a Provinciall , Nationall , or Catholike Church as our Author saith it is P. 307. It is then a marvell why such a Congregation having onely three Elders , may not have power to Excommunicate . Lastly , his words are expresse , Page 338. Where there are not many Churches consociated , then Ordination and Excommunication may be done by one single Congregation . If therefore a Congregation have not above three Elders , yet being not consociated with other Churches , it may lawfully Excommunicate , by his own grant .

For deciding questions that concerne many Churches , if they decide them no further but onely as they concerne themselves , this is no putting a private sickle in a common and publike Harvest , but a medling with matters onely so farre as they doe concerne themselves .

Secondly , he saith , All appeales without warrant from Christs will we condemne , as the abuse of Appeales to a Court which is known shall never be , Page 425.

Answ . If appeales without warrant from Christ will be condemned , why are wee not told what appeales they are , that have the warrant of Christs will , and what Appeales have not ? For such a generall word a● this , of the warrant of Christs will , without some further and more particular explication doth leave the matter as darke as it was before . If the meaning be , that only such Appeales are unwarrantable as are made to a Court which is known shall never be , and that all others are warrantable , then it will follow that appeales to generall Councels and all other Courts , except only from a generall Councell are warrantable , for who doth certainely know that a generall Councell will never be ? And so by this meanes the Classes , 〈◊〉 Synod , and the Nationall Church are all deprived of supremacie , and independencie of Iurisdiction as well as the Congregacion .

Thirdly , he saith , Antiochs appeale to a Synod 200 miles distant as our Brethren say , was no Judaizing but that which Paul and the Apostles were guilty of as well as we .

Answ . Whether Antioch and Jerusalem were 200 miles distant or no as we have never affirmed so much , so I will not stand now to inquire . But this I stand upon , that no Scripture doth witnesse that Antioch did appeale to Jerusalem in the point of Iurisdiction , about which our question doth lye , if they did appeale to them for a Doctrinall decision or determination of the question , that nothing hindereth our cause who do not deny such a Doctrinall power in Synods . But their power of Iurisdiction is the thing that should be proved . Lastly , if this example of Antioch doe prove that there may bee and ought to bee appeales from Congregations to Synods , though those Synods be 200 miles distant , then that which wee said in the Answer is here confessed to be true : viz. That according to our Brethrens Iudgement the state of the Church in point of Discipline is as defective and burdensome in the time of the Gospell , as it was in the dayes of the old Testament . For as then the supreame Iudicatory at Jerusalem was many miles distant from such as dwelt in the furthest parts of the Holy Land , and specially from the Proselites that dwelt in other Countries , so here our Author seemes to yeeld that in these dayes of the new Testament there must or may be appeales to Synods , though they be 200 miles distant . I hope then if others blame our way for making the Gospell as defective and improvident as the Law , or more defective then it , yet this our Brother will not do so , but on the contrary will acknowledge for us and with us , that the way which himselfe pleads for , is more justly culpable in this respect .

Fourthly , he saith , Matters concerning many Churches must be handled by many .

Answ . This may be granted in a safe sence without any prejudice at all unto our cause , for we are well content that so farre as they concerne many they may be handled by many , so that each Congregation may have liberty to deale in them so farre as they concerne themselves .

And thus you have all which Mr. Rutherford hath brought against that passage of ours wherein we say it is not our way but theirs , that doth make the Gospell more defective then the Law , instead whereof he is pleased to make us say that they doe Iudaize ; But for eleering their way from that which wee object against the same , or for convincing out way to be guilty thereof as by some hath been objected , which is the thing in question in the place by him alledged , for ought I perceive there is nothing in the foure particulars of his answer , that doth any thing availe to either of these : for if a rash delivering of men to Satan have more evill in it then speedy ending of controversies hath good ▪ If appeales without warrant from Christs will , be unlawfull : If Antioch did appeale to a Synod 200 miles distant , and if matters concerning many Churches must be ended by many , which foure particulars are the whole substance of his answer , what is there in all this ( for I would gladly apply his Answers to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 the thing in question , what is there I say in all this that 〈◊〉 convince our way to be more defective then the way under the old Testament ? Or that doth cleere the way of our Brethren from being truly culpable thereof ▪ Let all the evill that can be found in rash delivering men to Satan be extended to the utmost , and let the rest of the foure particulars be granted , doth all this sufficiently cleere it that the way which we plead for is more defective , or the way of our Brethren more perfect and excellent , then the way that was used under the Law ? If they do not amount to the cleering of this , they do not come up to cleere the thing in question , which for ought I perceive doth still remaine as it was notwithstanding all that our Brother here brings .

CHAP. X. Whether the necessity of Discipline be greater then of Sacraments : and whether a Congregation that hath neighbours may not exercise intirenesse of Iurisdiction as well as one that hath none : and whether a man may take on him the whole Ministery having no outward calling thereto ; and may not as well take on him one act of Baptizing or Ministring the Lords Supper .

THe next place where I find our Reverend Brother dealing with the Answer , is in Page 453 , 454. Where disputing that there was a Presbyteriall Church at Ierusalem , he saith it is Objected by us ( alledging the Answer , Page 6. ) That if a Church in an Iland by Divine institution and so the first Congregation as Ierusalem which did meete in Solomons Porch had once an intire power of Iurisdiction , though in an extraordinary case , the case is ordinary , as in the Dominion of Wales there is scarce a Congregation to be found within 20 , or 30 miles . 2. Suppose the case were extraordinary and rare , may they violate the ordinary rules of Christ ? For so some may thinke and say that though according to ordinary rules , Baptisme and the Lords Supper must be dispensed only by men and by Ministers , yet in the want of these the one may be dispensed by a woman or mid-wife , and both of them by such as are no Ministers . And then hee subjoyneth his Answer .

Answ . Our Authors scope and intention being to prove a Presbyteriall Church at Ierusalem , I cannot apprehend a good reason , why now he should fall upon the place of the Answer alledged , in as much at the place makes not any mention of Ierusalem at all , nor of any Presbyteriall Church there , either one way or other . But it seemes he was willing to go something out of his way that so he might have a saying to the Answer , yet if it must needs be so , I could have desired that the words of the Answer might have been kept , without making alteration by leaving some things out , and putting others in of his own accord , and by mentioning others with another face then was ever intended by us . For though he is pleased to mention a Church in an Iland and the first founded Congregation at Ierusalem , in his Objection which he● brings in under Mr. Tompsons name and mine , yet he that shall peruse the place will find that neither of these are once mentioned by us at all , and why then they should be brought in as ours I do not know . And for the former part of our Answer , wherein we show that for a Christian Congregation to want neighbour Congregations to whom they may with conveniency have recourse , and not so unusuall as some may imagine , we do not only alledge for that end the Dominion of Wales as our Brother doth report , but also the remoter parts of the North , and specially the state of things in times and places of generall Persecution and generall prophanenesse , and new Plantations in Heathen Countries ; all which our Brother doth omit , as if wee had not mentioned any of them . And whereas we mention the scarcity of Congregations in the remoter parts of Wales and of the North , as intimated by our Reverend Brother Mr. Herle in that learned and loving discourse of his , whereto we doe apply our Answer , Mr. Rutherford concealeth that we do mention this , as the apprehension or intimation of another , and instead thereof makes bold to set it downe under our name , as if we had delivered it as our own . All which alterations , omissions and additions are such as wee for our parts would not willingly have made the like in any worke of his nor of any other man. For let such liberty as this be taken in repeating what men do speake or write , and misapprehension of their true ●ntent and meaning must needs be bred hereby in the minds of all those that shall read or heare such reports and beleeve the same . Neverthelesse , let us consider what our Brother doth returne in his Answer .

We thinke saith he , a Ministery and Discipline more necessary to a Congregation in a remote Iland , or to the Church of Ierusalem before they increase to such a number as cannot meet for their numerous multitude in one Congregation , then the Sacraments when there be no Ministers to dispense them .

Answ . Would not one thinke by th●se words , and the other laid down in the Objection , that we had spoken something of a Church in an Iland , and of the Church in Jerusalem ? Else why should these be objected , and answered as ours ? But th truth is we have not spoken one word either of the one or the other of these particulars : which will plainly appeare to him that shall view the place . Something wee have spoken in the generall of a Congregation that wants neighbours , which we did being thereunto led by our Reverend Brother Mr. Herle , but of a Church in an Iland , and of the Church at Ierusalem in particular , of which Mr. Rutherford heere speaks , of these we have said nothing .

Second , the former part of our answer , that for a Congregation to want neighbours is not so unusuall as some may imagine , this Mr. Rutherford wholly passeth over in silence , only he propounds it in his Objection in such sort as we have heard , and so leaves it , whereby it seemes he yeelds the thing . And thereupon it followes , that intirenesse of Iurisdiction in a Congregation must be yeelded frequently lawfull , it being frequently seene , that Congregations want neighbours in which case their intirenesse of Iurisdiction is not denyed .

Third , for the second part of our answer , we thus expresse our selves therein . viz. That we suppose it is good to take heed how farre we yeeld it lawfull in extraordinary cases to transgresse and violate ordinary rules , whereof wee render the reason , least some body doe thence inferre the lawfulnesse of ministring Sacraments by non-Ministers , in case Ministers be wanting . This is that which we have said in this matter . If therefore Mr. Rutherford would take away what we have said herein , he must say it is not good nor needfull to take such heed , but men may yeeld it lawfull in such cases to transgresse and violate ordinary rules , and never need to take heed how farre they yeeld therein . This indeed were contradictory to what we have said , and if this be once cleered for truth , then I must confesse our saying is cleerely disproved . But the cleering of this we hope our Brother will never attempt : Sure yet he hath not done it , and so our saying yet remaines as it was .

Fourth , Whereas he saith he thinkes a Ministery and Discipline more necessary in the cases he speaks of , then Sacraments and there be no Ministers , though this be not directly opposite to what we have said , yet because I would consider of every thing wherein he seemes to ayme at us , therefore I am willing to consider of this also . Our Reverend Brother thinkes Discipline in the cases mentioned more necessary then Sacraments : and yet in his Page 287 , 288. handling that question , whether Discipline be a marke of the visible Church , and laying down sundry distinctions about the same , hee gives us these severall Propositions in termes : First , care to exercise Discipline may be wanting in a true Church . Second , right Discipline is not necessary to the essence of a visible Church as a City may bee without Wals , a Garden without a hedge . Third , the exercise of Discipline may be wanting , and the Church a true visible Church . Fourth , the Church may retaine the essence and being of a visible Church , and yet have no Discipline in actuall use or little , in which place he cites and approves the judgement of Parker , Cartwright and others ; who make Discipline necessary only to the wel-being of the Church , as being not indifferent but commanded in the word and necessary in respect of its end . Now if this be all the necessity that is in Discipline , how is Discipline more necessary then Sacraments ? For may not as much bee said of them as here is said of Discipline ? Are not Sacraments necessary to the well-being of the Church , as being commanded in the word , as well as Discipline is ? And serving for excellent ends , as well as Discipline doth ? I suppose it will n●● be denyed , and therefore the necessity of Discipline above Sacraments doth not yet appeare . Especially if that be considered withall which our Brother teacheth else-where . viz. In his second P. 211. & sequ . Where he tels us , That Sacraments are not only declarative signes , but also reall exhibitive seales of Grace , having a causality in them to make a thing that was not , and so excelling all civill Seales which do adde no new Lands to the owner of the Charter sealed therewith . Now if Sacraments be thus excellent and effectuall , how is it that in the place wee have in hand , Discipline is made more necessary then they ? For a greater Elogie then here hee gives to Sacraments , I suppose himselfe would not give unto Discipline . Yea in P. 302 he expresly affirmes , That Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments are essentiall notes of the visible Church . But of Discipline I conceive he will not say the same , sure it is in the Page following distinguishing betwixt notes of the Church which are necessary ad●sse , To the very being of a visible Church , and such as are necessary only ad bene esse , to the well-being thereof , he expresly makes Discipline a worke or note of this second sort , and as we heard ere-while , he in Page 287 expresly affirmes it is not necessary to the essence of a Church . And therefore it is some marvell why now 〈◊〉 makes Discipline more necessary then Sacraments .

But he gives us two reasons of this greater necessity of Discipline then of Sacraments . First , that intire power of Discipline in a Congregation that wants neighbours is not extraordinary Second , that there is no such morall necessity of Sacraments , as there is of Discipline , Page 455.

Concerning the former his words are these , viz. That the Church be in an Iland it selfe alone may possibly be extraordinary , but that in such a case they have intire power of discipline whole and entire within themselves to Excommunicate Scandalous persons is not extraordinary . Wherein first of all I observe a difference between him and our Reverend Brother Mr. Herle , who having granted that where there is no consociation or neighbour-hood of Congregations , there a single Congregation must not be denyed intirenesse of Iurisdiction , doth presently adde that the case is extraordinary , and so fals not within the compasse of the question of the ordinary rule of Church-government : Independencie of Churches , P. 2. plainly confessing that the case is extraordinary , whereas Mr. Rutherford here saith it is not .

Second , as he expresly differs from Mr. Herle , so it is considerable whether his words do well agree with themselves . For saith he , That the Church be in an Iland it selfe alone may be extraordinary , but that in such case they have entire power of Iurisdiction of Discipline within themselves , to Excommunicate Scandalous persons , is not extraordinary . Which saying needs good explication . For it seemes hard to conceive how the power and actions of any subject or efficient should be more usuall and ordinary then it s very being and subsistance : Which yet must needs bee , if this stand good that the being of a Church in an Iland is extraordinary , and yet the power of such a Church to Excommunicate is usuall and ordinary

Third , If their power of Discipline , yea intire Power be in the case expressed or●●●ary , shall we then say that if the case ●e otherwise so that a Church be not alone but have neighbours , entirenesse of power in such a case is extraordinary ? It seemes a● must ●ay 〈◊〉 , or else wee must say that intirenesse of power in both cases is ordinary . If this latter be said , it is as much as we desire : for then I hope it must not be a small 〈◊〉 ordinary matter , that must hinder a Church that hath neighbours from exercising 〈…〉 ●●●●diction within themselves , no more then a Church that lives alone , 〈…〉 power being ordinary in them both . For if it be so in them both , in the one as well as in the other , I know not why any small or ordinary matter should hinder the one Church any more then the other from the use and exercise of such entire power . If we say that entirenesse of power in a Church that hath neighbours is extraordinary , though in a Church that is alone it be ordinary , besides that such a saying sounds harshly and seemes very improbable , we shall by this meanes make cases extraordinary to be very frequent & usuall , in as much as all men know it is very usuall for Congregationall Churches to have neighbours : and so if entirenesse of power in a Church that hath neighbours be extraordinary , it will follow that extraorninary power is very usuall and frequent ; so that inconveniences on each side do seeme inevitably to follow against our Brothers cause , upon this which here he affirmeth , that entirenesse of power in a Church that is alone is not extraordinary .

But let us here his reason in the subsequent words , why this entirenesse of power in a Church that is alone is not extraordinary . For it floweth saith he , continually from a Church , to which agreeth the essence of a Church , to exercise Iurisdiction over all its own members . And I suppose he must meane this of Iurisdiction entire and compleat , for of this is the question , and a few lines afore , He expresly cals it entire power of Discipline , whole and entire within themselves . Now if this be true which here is said , as for my part I conceive no other of it , that it floweth connaturally from a Church , to which agreeth the essence of a Church to exercise entire Iurisdiction over all its own members , then it will follow that a Church that hath neighbours as well as a Church that hath none must have this entirenesse of Iurisdiction , sith the essence of a Church doth agree to the one as well as to the other , to a Church that hath neighbours as well as to a Church that is alone . Our Author tels us Page 302. That a Congregation in an Iland is a Church properly so called , and hath the essentiall notes of a visible Church agreeing to it , and wants nothing of the being and essence of a Church . And if this be true of a Church that is alone , shall we thinke it is not true of a Church that hath neighbours ? Doth the accession of neighbours to a Congregation take away from such a Congregation the essence of a Church which it had before ? I conceive none will so say . And if every Church to which agreeth the essence of a Church may exercise entire Iurisdiction over all its own members , as our Brother doth acknowledge , it followeth unavoidably thereupon that all Congregationall Churches , such as have neighbours and such as have none may exercise such entirenesse of Iurisdiction , sith the essence of a Church doth agree unto them all . Vnlesse he will deny the essence of a Church to a Congregation which hath neighbours , which hee freely yeeldeth to a Congregation which is alone , he must grant entirenesse of Iurisdiction unto them both , because he grants it to the one upon this reason , that the essence of a Church doth agree thereunto , which reason if it agree to both , how can i● be avoided but entirenesse of Iurisdiction must be in both ? And how can it be affirmed or imagined that a Congregation having the essence of a Church afore and have neighbours , should lose this essence of a Church when neighbours are added to it ? A family having the essence of a family now it is alone , doth not lose this essence by meanes of other families added . Nor doth a City that is such , as it is alone lose the essence of a City by the accesse of other Cities : and the same might be said of a Corporation , a Province , a Kingdome , or any other society whatsoever . And that it should be otherwise with a Congregationall Church , that it should lose the essence of a Church as other neighbours Churches do arise , doth seeme very strange and unreasonable . And let the essence of a Church be still retayned by such a Congregation , as I conceive it must , and then intirenesse of Iurisdiction must not be denyed to such a Congregation , sith it doth flow connaturally from every Church to which the essence of a Church doth agree .

If there bee no more consociated with that Church that is by accident , and an extraordinary exigence of Gods Providence . As a Master of a family is to educate his children in the feare of God , but if God take all his children from him by death , he doth not transgresse the ordinary rule of educating his children in the feare of God , as he hath none .

Answ . If this comparison doe suit the present purpose and case in hand , then this Master of a family is a Congregation , and these his children are the members of other Congregations : And so as a Master of a family needs not to educate his children in Gods feare , when they are all taken from him by death , so a Congregation needs not to governe the members of other Congregation as there are no other Congregation extant , but it selfe is left alone in an Iland . In which kind of arguing sundry things may be excepted against . As fir●● of all that there should be such power in a Congregation as in a Master of a family over his own children , which needs a good deale of proofe afore it may be yeelded , in as much as the power of the one is plainly and plentifully taught in the Scripture , as Eph. 4. 6. Col. 3. Deut. 6. 7. Deut. 21. And many other places . But I desire one cleere place of Scripture , in all the Book of God either old Testament or new , to shew the like power in a Congregationall Church , over the members of other Churches . Againe , when a Master of a family hath all his children taken from him by death , he hath then no children of his own to governe , but wants a Congregationall Church & is left alone in an Iland , the Presbytery of that Congregation is left alone , but have still the members of that Congregation whom they may and ought to guide and governe in the feare of God , which is another particular wherein the comparison failes .

But though the similitude as Mr. Rutherford hath laid it down , doth not confirme his purpose , yet I conceive it may be ▪ so framed and applyed as that it may well serve for the weekning thereof , thus ; A Master of a family having ( when that family is alone ) entire power to governe his family in the feare of God , when other families do arise that become neighbours neere adjoyning , he is not by this meanes deprived of the power which he had before , but still retaines the same entire and compleate as formerly it was : even so the Presbytery of a Congregationall Church having ( when that Congregation is alone , ) entire power of Iurisdiction over its own members , is not when neighbour Congregation do arise , deprived by this meanes of the power which it had before , but still retaines the same entire as formerly it was . Againe , though when God takes away a mans children by death , he is no longer bound to educate and governe those children in the feare of God , yet as long as his children live with him in his family , it is not the sitting down of other families neere by him that can take away this power from him , or discharge him of this duty : even so , though when members of a Congregation be taken away by death or otherwise , the Congregation or its Presbytery doth no longer stand charged or bound with the oversight and government of such members yet as long as they live in the Congregation , it is not the arising of other Congregations neere to them that can free them from the power wherewith they were invested , nor from the duty wherewith they were formerly charged towards such members , Thus the comparison runs even , and we see our Brothers cause is not a little disadvantaged thereby . But as he hath laid it down , it doth so apparantly faile that I do not perceive how it can afford him any helpe at all .

This argument supposeth that the Congregation hath no power of Excommunication at all , either compleat or incompleate , as the Midwife hath no power to Baptize , either compleate or incompleate .

Answ . Suppose a Congregation have an incompleate power when they have neighbours , how shall it appeare that when they are alone their power is now compleat ? Or how will it be avoided but by the like reason , one Elder alone may Excommunicate in case there be no other Elders to joyne with him ? For plain it is , that one Elder when their is a full Presbytery or Classis hath an incompleate power , though not a compleat . And yet I hope this incompleat power in one Elder when there are other Elders joyned with him , will not warrant him to exercise a power compleat when he is alone , because such a power must be exercised by a Church , with one Elder alone cannot be . And if one Elder having an incompleat power when he is joyned with others , may not exercise a compleat power when he is alone , how will the incompleat power of a Congregation when they have neighbours ( suppose that in such case their power were indeed incompleate ) how will this I say warr●nt that Congregation when they are alone to exercise a compleat power ? For ought I see , the compleat power of the Congregation is no more warranted upon this ground , then the like power of one Elder upon the same ground , the cases being alike in both .

Neither doth a Congregation transgresse any rule of Christ at all when it exerciseth entire power of censures within it self , whereas there be no consociated ●hurches to share with it in that power .

Answ . This I grant is very true ; and I desire it may not be recalled , but may still stand as here it is expresly given to us ; and then I desire to know what rule of Christ is transgressed , if an other Congregation , I meane a Congregation that hath neighbours , do exercise the like power . For my part I know no such rule , nor any good reason but if that the one Congregation may so practise , the other Congregation may do the like , and that the grounds ( at least some of them ) which will warrant the one , will also suffice to warrant the other . Neverthelesse when any rule of Christ shal be produced that doth restraine a Congregation that hath neighbours of this entire power , which is so freely and plainly granted to the Congregation that is alone , I shall then grant that the former must have lesse liberty to exercise this power , then is here granted to the latter . In the meane time , that which here is yeelded to the one doth amongst other things induce me to thinke that the same ought to be granted to the other , and so that entirenesse of power is in them both .

A Congregation ( viz. which is alone ) is capable of entire Jurisdiction because it is a Church .

Answ . How will it then be avoided but a Congregation which hath neighbours , or a Congregation which was alone and now hath neighbours added to it , how will it be avoided I say , but such a Congregation as this is also capable of entire Iurisdiction ? For can it be denyed but such a Congregation is a Church , as well as the other ? Sure if Mr. Rutherford his Doctrine elsewhere delivered do stand good , this cannot be denyed at all . For in his Page 301 he saith , That is a Church , and hath the essence of a Church , to which agree the essentiall notes of a visible Church , and Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments saith he are essentiall notes of a visible Church . Which if it bee so , then a Congregation that hath neighbours is a visible Church , and hath the essence of a Church , because Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments are cleerely found in such a Congregation . And if such a Congregation be a Church , then by his own Doctrine in this place which we have in hand , such a Congregation is capable of entire Iurisdiction . For thus I argue from his own words

Every Congregation which is a Church is capable of entire Iurisdiction .

But a Congregation which hath neighbours is a Church .

Therefore a Congregation which hath neighbours is capable of entire Iurisdiction .

The conclusion is that which we stand for , and it makes directly against our Brother , and yet I see not how he can avoyd it , because both the premises are his own . For the Proposition is plaine from the words we have in hand , v●z . A Congregation is capable of entire Jurisdiction because it is a Church . Now if this be the reason why it is capable thereof , then looke to what Congregation this reason doth agree , every such Congregation must be so capable . For our Author well knoweth that à quatenus ad omnia consequentia . And for the Assumption , the same is confirmed by his words , Page 302 , Where he makes that to be a Church , and to have the essence of a Church , to which the Preaching of the word , and administration of the Sacraments do agree . And these agreeing to a Congregation that hath neighbours , it followeth that a Congregation that hath neighbours is a Church . Vnlesse hee will deny to a Congregation that hath neighbours power of Preaching the word and administring the Sacraments ( which I am perswaded he will not deny at all ) it will unavoidably follow from his own ground that such a Congregation is a visible Church . And if such a Congregation be a visible Church , then by his own ground also , such a Congregation must be capable of entire Iurisdiction : which conclusion if it bee granted we desire no more , for it is the thing that we hold .

A woman in no case is capable of administring Baptisme or the Lords Supper , except she were extraordinarily and immediately inspired to bee a Prophetesse , but for the exercise of entire power of Jurisdiction by a Congregation in a remote Iland , I hope it hath no such need of immediate inspiration .

Answ . Nor do wee thinke otherwise ; but ( that we may keepe to the points and bring up the dispute to the thing in questio ) if such a Congregation having no such inspiration may notwithstanding lawfully exercise intire power of Iurisdiction within themselves , and that upon this reason , because they now are alone , which if they had neighbours were not lawfull for them to do , then let it be well considered , whether by the like reason in the like extraordinary case , Baptisme and the Lords Supper may not be administred the one of them by a woman , and both of them by such as are no Ministers . For as in one case the plea , to make it lawfull is this , because such a Congregation hath no neighbours , so in the other the plea is because the Congregation hath no Ministers , nor perhaps there are no men at hand . And if the one which at other times were unlawfull , yet in such an extraordinary exigence of Gods Providence may be lawfully done , though there be no immediate inspiration to warrant the same , why doth there need such immediate inspiration to warrant the other , the extraordinary exigence of Gods Providence being alike in both . I desire I may not be mistaken in this passage , for I doe not affirme ( nor ever did ) that the dispensation of Discipline and of Sacraments in the cases mentioned are both alike unlawfull , or else both alike lawfull . The Answer will not witnesse that I have so affirmed , neither yet this present discourse t● much lesse do I hold that Sacraments may be dispensed by women or by men that are not Ministers . All that I have said in this matter is thus much , that it is good to take heed how farre we yeeld it lawfull in such extraordinary cases , as want of neighbours , to transgresse and violate ordinary rules , least some body do thence inferre that Sacraments may be dispensed by women or men that are no Ministers , in case that Ministers or men be wanting . This I have said indeed , as being tender and afraid to open a dore too far for liberty of transgressing ordinary rules , and conceiving that keeping close to those rules is the safest way . If any man be more bold and dare open the dore further then I dare adventure to do , and thinke he can easily shut the same againe , to stop the inconveniencies and ill consequents which I feare may thence ensue . I shall leave him to his discretion , and the guidance of God therein , onely craving thus much for my selfe that no more may be imputed to me , nor reported of me in this or other matters , then indeed I have affirmed or expressed .

Concerning his second reason of the greater necessity of Discipline then of Sacraments , his words are these . There is no such morall necessity of Sacraments as there is of the Ministery of the word and consequently of the use of the Keyes , where a Scandalous person may infect the Lords flock : for where vision ceaseth the people perish . But it is never said where Baptisme ceaseth the people perish , Pag. 455.

Answ . How shall we be sure that by vision , Prov. 26. 18. Is meant Discipline ? Yea Discipline not in a large sense as comprehending generally all order and behaviour concerning a Church and outward duties therein , but Discipline strictly taken for administration of censures ( for of this is one question ) how I say shall wee be sure that by vision is meant this Discipline ? The usuall Expositers Tremeli●● and Junius , 〈…〉 , and others doe expound the same of the Preaching and dispensing of the word , making no mention at all of Discipline as meant thereby . And the 〈◊〉 branch of the verse , He ●hat keepeth the Law is blessed , doth ●hew that by vision in the former branch is mean the Law , or Doctrine or word of God. And if the Scripture do not s●y , where Baptisme ceaseth the people perish , yet neither doth it say , where administrat●on of Censures ceaseth the people perish ; and therefore no necessity of censures above Sacraments can be concluded hence .

Vncalled Ministers in case of necessity without Ordination or calling from a Presbytery may Preach and take on them the holy Ministery and exercise power of Jurisdiction , because of the necessity of the Soules of a Congregation in a remote Iland requireth so .

Answ If they may do these things without Ordination ( as for my part I deny it not , so that the election or consent of the Congregation be not wan●ing , for that I suppose might be a good part of an outward calling ) then I demand whether one Minister alone may not thus do , I meane whether one alone may not in the case proposed take on him the holy Ministery and Preach the word as a Minister . If many may do it , then I suppose there is no question but one may do it much rather . And if so , then I demand further whe●her such a single Minister may not also administer the Sacraments to such a Congregation : I suppose it cannot be denyed , for if he lawfully take on him the Ministery and Preach as a Minister , what should hinder , but he may also Baptize , and minister the Lords Supper ? And if hee may thus doe , then I demand lastly , whether this single Minister may also administer Discipline and censures in that Congregation . If he may , then either the power of those censures must be in himselfe alone , or in the Congregation also , in himselfe alone it cannot be , because censures must bee dispensed by a Church , and one man alone cannot bee a Church , If it be in the Congregation also , then here is a power of Excommunication or other censures even in the people which is against our Brothers judgement . If it be said that this single Minister as long as he wan●s other Ministers joyned with him may not administer censures or Discipline , then it will follow that power of censures is not alwayes annexed to the Ministery as an inseparable adjunct thereof , nor are Censures to be preferred before Sacraments as more necessary , as our Brother would have it , for as much as here is a Ministery and the administring of Sacraments , the necessity of the soules of the Congregation requiring so , and yet for all this not any power of censures at all . Our Brother therefore may make his choyce , whether hee will grant the power of the Keyes of Discipline to bee in the people , or whether he will say the necessity of the soules in a Congregation doth require Sacraments more then Discipline ; For though these be both against himselfe , yet upon the ground which himselfe doth here lay , the one of the two is unavoidable .

But I hope no necessity in any of the most extraordinary case requireth that a Midwife may Baptize , or that a private man remaining a private man may celebrate the Lords Supper to the Church , without any calling from the Church .

Answ . Concerning the Midwife I thinke the same that he doth . And concerning the private man , I also therein ●●curre that without calling from the Church hee may not performe what here is spoken of . But here I would make this Quare whether 〈◊〉 man that never was a Minister may not as well in an extraordinary case performe 〈◊〉 act of administring of Baptisme or the Lords Supper , without any calling from the 〈◊〉 bytery or the Church unto whom the office of Ministery , as take on him without any such calling the whole Ministery , and so Preach and exercise the power of Iurisdiction as a Minister For as for the one of these , our Brother expresly grants a man m●y lawfully take it on him without any such calling , the necessity of the Soules of a Congregation in an Iland requiring so ; and if this necessity will warrant the one which is the whole and so the greater , why will it not warrant the other which is but one act and so the lesser ? One would thinke one act of dispensing Baptisme or the Supper were a lesser matter then the whole Ministery , and all the actions thereof . And marvell it is , that the necessity of the Soules of a Congregation should warrant this which is the greater , and yet the same necessity should not be sufficient warrant for the lesser , a mans calling being otherwise alike unto both , that is , having an outward calling to neither Himself doth sometimes reason thus , If wee give to beleevers that are not in office one pastorall act , wee may with the like weight of reason give them all : Peaceable plea , Page 272. Now if this reasoning be good from one Act to all , why is no this as good , from all to any one or to some one ? And why may we not in like maner argue thus , If persons uncalled may without Ordination or calling take on them the whole Ministery , why may not persons uncalled without Ordination or calling take on them to Baptize or Minister the Supper ? Not that I thinke such a practise to be lawfull , but only I intend to make quaere about the validity of our Brothers kind of arguing . Yea , it is elsewhere his arguing , that it persons not in office of Ministery may execute censures and Discipline , they may then administer the Sacraments . For saith he , What hinders by this reason but they may also without Ministers Prea●h and administer the Sacraments : Peaceable Plea , Page 196. Yea saith he , I s●e not but with a like warrant private men may administer the Sacraments : Vbi Supra , Page 196. This we see is his arguing elsewhere : And yet in the place we have in hand he grants that persons uncalled may in case of necessity without Ordination or calling take on them the Ministery in generall , and in particular may exerc●se the power of Iurisdiction , and yet for all this he sayes , that no necessity will warrant a man to celebrate the Lords Supper without a calling from the Church . Which two sayings for ought I perceive do not agree . For in the one it is affirmed that if they may exercise Discipline and censures , they may by the like reason administer Sacraments : and the other saith they may exercise Discipline and censures and yet may not administer Sacraments ; and yet both the sayings are expressed by the same Authors Pen.

CHAP. XI . Whether the power of Iurisdiction flowing immediately from the essence of a Church doe not agree to a Church that hath neighbours as well as to a Church that hath none : And whether otherwise neighbouring Churches bee not a losse . And whether pretence of male-administration be a sufficient reason for neighbouring Churches to deprive a Congregation of its power .

THe next place where I find Mr. Rutherford dealing with the Answer , is in his Page 455. Where he brings in these words under Mr. Tompsons name and mine , viz. If the power of Jurisdiction flow immediately and necessarily from the essence of a Church , and a Congregation be essentially a Church , then this power agreeth to all Churches whether consociated , or not consociated , and without respect of what neighbours they have , whether many or few , whether any or none . Second , a Congregation it selfe alone cannot have sole power of Iurisdiction and then be deprived of it , when God sendeth neighbours , for then neighbouring Churches which are given for help should be given for losse , the contrary whereof Ames saith no. Doe Synods saith he , Constitute a new forme of a Chur●h .

Thus farre Mr. Rutherford who in his Margent alledgeth Mr. Tompson and me , 16. Pag. 4 , 5.

Answ . In one of these Pages of the Answer , viz. P. 5. there is nothing at all to be found that looks toward such a purpose as our Brother hath in hand , and therefore this Page should not have been here alledged . The words of Dr. Ames are more imperfectly cited by our Brother , then they were alledged in the Answer , For the Answer alledgeth them thus out of Medull . Theol. Lib. 1. Chapter 3. Sect 27. That the combination of Churches into Classes , and Synods doth neither constitute a new forme of a Church , nor ought by any meanes to take away or impayer that liberty and power which Christ hath given to his Churches , sith it serveth only for the directing and furthering of the same . Wher●as our Brother expresseth only those first words that Synods do not constitute a new forme of a Church , but all the rest wherein the chiefe strength of Dr. Ames his testimony doth lye , them he doth wholly omit and leave out . He also leaves out the assent which is given by Mr. Paget , to this testimony of Dr. Ames , which assent as it is expressed in his defence P. 107. in these words , This we do willingly grant , is also in the ●ame words alledged by the Answer in P. 4. But this is wholly passed over by Mr. Rutherford in silence . Now two such men as these being alledged in the Answer , as plainly affirming that the combination of Churches into Classes and Synods must neither tollere nor minuere , take away not impaire or diminish the liberty or power of Churches , but only serve for the directing and furthering of the same , And the one of them being the chiefe Patron of the power of Classes and Synods , It is some marvell to me that no word of Answer is vouchsafed to them by Mr. Rutherford , but that their words are thus passed by with silence , and the name of one of them not so much as mentioned . How ever this is cleere , that he that gainsayes the Answer in this passage , hath not only the Answer , but also the Reverend Author here mentioned to be against him . But let us come to consider of Mr. Rutherford his Answer which he subjoyneth in these words , viz.

Power of Iurisdiction floweth from the essence of a Congregation in an Iland , ergo a totall and compleat power of Iurisdiction floweth from the essence of a Church or Congregation consociated , it followeth no wayes .

Answ I desire the reason may be laid down according to our true meaning therein , and in its full strength ; and then the former part thereof must not only speak of power of Iurisdiction flowing from the essence of a Church that want neighbours , but of entire power , for thereof is the question ; and in the latter part the termes must no : be a Church consociated but a Church that hath neighbours ; Now if entire power and Iurisdiction do flow from the essence of a Church , and therefore this essence of a Church being found in a Congregation that wants neighbours , this entirenesse of power mu●t thereupon be granted to such a Congregation ; I then demand why the like entirenesse of power must not be granted as well to a Congregation that hath neighbours , sith the essence of a Church is found in this Congregation , as well as in the other . For ought I see either the essence of a Church must be denyed to a Congregation that hath neighbours or else it will follow that entirenesse of power must be granted to such a Congregation , Risibility and power of reason flowing immediately and necessarily from the essence of a man , and power to defend it selfe and purge out excrements flowing in like sort from the essence of a humane body , and power to governe it self with family government flowing in like sort from the essence of a family ; therefore we must not grant these powers to be entire in such a man , such a body , or such a family as is alone , and deny the same to one that hath neighbours , but must grant them alike unto all , because this power flowes from their very essence , which is as truly found in such as have neighbours , as it is in those that are alone . And the like may be said in other cases . And why it should be otherwise in a Congregationall Church , that the power of the Iurisdiction flowing from the essence of such a Church should therefore be entire in such a Congregation as is alone in an Iland , and yet not entire in a Congregation that hath neighbours , though this Congregation hath the essence of a Church as well as the other , why these Congregations I say should thus greatly differ in their power , and yet be alike in their essence from whence their power doth flow , for my part I yet do not understand the reason .

Nor doth that satisfy which Mr. Rutherford here alledgeth , That one Pastor in a Congregation hath as a Pastor power to rebuke sin and to administer the Sacraments , and yet when three Pastors are added to help him he hath not the sole power of rebuking sin , and the sole and entire power to administer the Sacraments , but these three Pastors have power with him : This I conceive doth not help the matter at all : For though it be true that these three Pastors being added to the first have each of them the like power as the first had , yet the power of the first for the performance of these things mentioned , is as comple●t in him notwithstanding this addition , as it was before , and not any whit abated nor impayred thereby : And the reason is , because matters of order flowing from the essence of a Pastor may bee sufficiently and compleatly performed by one Pastor singly , which acts of Iurisdiction cannot . Mr. Rutherford his own words in this case are these , viz. A single Pastor may Ministerially give out Commandements in the authority of Christ , but hee cannot himselfe censure or Excommunicate the contraveners of those Commandements : Due Right , Page 387. And againe , Page 387 , 388 It is proper is acts of Iuris●iction Ecclesiasticall that they cannot be exercised by one alone , but must be exercised by a society : but a Pastor as a Pastor himselfe alone without any collaterally joyned with him exerciseth his Pastorall acts of Preaching and administring the Sacraments . Now if a Pastor as a Pastor himself alone without any collatterally joyned with him , may thus exercise his Pastorall acts , then indeed the accesse or addition of other Pastors is not at all destructive of his Pastorall power , but he still retaineth the same as compleat and perfect as before , because hee doth these acts as a Pastor and remaineth a Pastor still . But how this example and instance can any thing further Mr. Ruth●rford his purpose , I do not understand . For his intention is to make good that a Congregation may have entire power when it is alone , a●d yet not so when other Congregations do arise ; and for the consuming of this hee brings this instance and example from a Pastor that hath a Pastorall power afore other Pastors are added ; who by the addition of others hath no lesse power then afore ; which example I conceive rather makes against him then for him . For saith he , Page 456. Their Pastorall power added to him is Cumulative and auxiliary , but not privative or destructive of his Pastorall power , and therefore that the first Pastor suffereth losse by the addition of these three to him , who , saith he , will say this ?

Answ . I know none that will say it ; but if their power be Cumulative and auxiliary to his Pastorall power , and no wayes privative or destructive thereof , then what power he had afore they were added , the same he hath still in as great measure as formerly , and so his Pastorall acts are as perfect and valid as they were before . Now let the same bee granted to a Congregation that hath neighbour Congregations added , and we have what we demand : And if this be not granted , then though the power of those other Pastors be Cumulative and auxiliary to the other Pastor , yet the power of those other Congregations seemes not so to the former Congregation , but rather privative or destructive of its power , and then how can this example confirme our Brothers purpose , or how can it be avoided but the example which he produceth doth make against himselfe ? Sure if the power of these other Pastors bee not destructive to the former Pastors power , but auxiliary thereto , so that what power he had before , the same he retayneth still , and in the same measure , then it must bee so likew●se in a Congregation when neighbour Congregations are added , or else this example will not suit : But make the examples to agree and our cause is advantaged thereby .

Our Brethren doe conceive the power of Congregations in its kind and essence to be Monarchicall , so as if any power from consociated Congregations be added thereunto , the Congregations power Monarchicall is diminished and the essence of it changed .

Answ . The power of Congregations we ●old to be Ministeriall , as being delegated from Christ Iesus , and to be exercised according to his appointment ; and in him alone and in no other do we place this Monarchicall power ; according to what the Holy Ghost witnesseth , that there are differences of administrations but the same Lord , 1 Cor. 12. 5. And though our Brother is pleased to put this upon us , that we conceive the power of Congregations to bee Monarchicall , yet in truth the same is farre from us : Nor do I thinke that so much as one of us can be named , that at any time hath so spoken : Nor doth such a thing follow from any thing delivered by us concerning the power of Congregations . For as for that which here he intimateth and elsewhere expresseth more plainly , so that the power of Iurisdiction in Congregations is closely made void or destroyed by that power which some ascribe unto Classes , if this be holden by us , doth it thence follow that we hold the power of Congregations to be Monarchical●● It followes not at all . For then by the like reason I could prove that himselfe d●th hold a power Monarchicall in the universall or Provinciall Churches : For he expresly affirmeth , Page 337. That the Popes power destroyeth the power of the Church universall , and the Prelates power destroyeth the power of the Church whereof hee is pretended Pastor . And yet I hope he doth not hold a Monarchicall power in the one Chu●ch nor in the other , nor in any Church or Churches but in Christ alone ; nor can the same bee truly concluded upon that which hee affirmeth of destroying the power of Churches by the power of the Pope and Prelate . And if not , how then can any man conclude against us that we hold a Monarchicall power in Congregations , though wee should hold that the power of Congregations is destroyed or diminished by that power which some would give unto Classes● If our pr●mises will warrant him to fasten such a Tenent upon us , his own will give a warrant for the like against himselfe . And if the ground be insufficient to beare such a conclusion against him , as I confesse it is , I know no sufficient ground why the same should be imputed unto us .

Compleat and en●ire power to rule both the Congrega●ion and members of consociated Churches in so farre as they do keep communion with that Congregation , and may either edifie or Scandalize them , floweth not immeaiately and ●ecessarily from the essence of every Congregation even in remote Ilands not consociated with others , that we never said .

Answer . Indeed it were an absurd and grosse saying for any man to say , that a Congregation in a remote Iland not consociated with others should have power , yea compleat and entire power to rule the Congregation and members of Churches consociated and that this should flow immediately and necessarily from the essence of such a Congregation . But there is no need that our Brother should cleere himselfe from this saying , for I know none that imputes it to him . Neverthelesse , the saying here ●●joyned cannot be denyed , for they are his own verb●ti●● .

First , the ordinary power of Iurisdiction because of neerest vicinity and contiguity of members is given by Iesus Christ to one Congregation in an Isle , because that Church is a Church properly so called : It is a little City , and a little Kingdome of Iesus Christ , having within it selfe power of the ●ord and Sacraments and that is a Church and hath the essence of a Church to which agree the essentiall notes of a Church : now Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments are essentiall notes of a visible Church : Page 302.

Second , a Congregation is a Church wanting nothing of the being and essence of a Church , Page 302.

Third , where consociation is not , Ordination and Excommunication may be done by one single Congregation , Page 338.

Fourth , that in such cases ( viz. When a Church is in an Iland it selfe alone ) they have the word Preached and entire power of Discipline whole and entire within themselves to Excommunicate Scandalous persons , is not extraordinary , Page 454.

Fift , it floweth co●naturally from a Church to which agreeth the essence of a Church , to exercise Iurisdiction over all its owne members , ibid.

Sixt , neither doth a Congregation transgresse any rules of Christ at all , when it exerciseth entire Power of censures within it selfe , whereas there be no consociated Churches to share with it in that power , ibid.

Seaventh , a Congregation is capable of entire Iurisdiction , because it is a Church , Ibid.

Such sayings as these himselfe hath delivered in the pages and places here cited , and in the words and termes here expressed ; and therefore from these he cannot cleere himselfe And if from these the entirenesse of Iurisdiction in a Church that hath neighbours may justly be deduced , as I conceive it may , and have above manifested , it will then but little availe him to wash his hands from the stayne of that other absurd saying afore mentioned , which no man that I know do charge him withall . For as long as these other sayings do stand unrecalled , so long wee have cleere grounds from himselfe and his own words , for entirenesse of Iurisdiction in every Congregationall Church , and so for the weakening of his cause , and for the strengthening of our own .

A power to governe well and according to the rule of the Word added to an other power to governe well and according to the Word , is an auxiliary power and no way destructive to that power to which it is added . Indeed a power to governe well added to a power of male-administration in a Congregation is destructive of that power , and reason it should bee so , because Christ never gave any such power of male-administration to a Congregation .

Answ . Here our Brother speakes of two cases , first of a Power of governing well added to a power of governing well . Second , of a power of governing well added to a power of governing ill ; but besides these , there is a third case which had need to bee considered also , viz. A power of governing ill added to a power of governing well , which may be the case when the power of Classis is added to a Congregation ; for it is not impossible but the Congregation may be in the right and the Classis in the wrong . Now what shall be said or done in this ●ase ? Shall the Congregation now have the free exercise of its power , or shall it not ? To say yea , would satisfie the minds of many , if the Congregation themselves may be judge that they are in the right , or if it were determined who must judge thereof . And to say no , and that the power must still be in this erring Classis , were to subject righteousnesse to wickednesse , and truth to falshood , and I conceive our Brother will not maintain such power in a compound or Presbytery or Classis . For in Page 335. speaking of this very case , and the greater Presbytery is wrong in their voicing , and the Elders of a Congregationall Church are right , and have the best in judging of a case before them , he plainly affirmeth , That the power which in this case the Presbytery exerciseth is not of Christ , and that de jure the power of the greater Presbytery in this case ought to be swallowed up of the voices of the Elders of a Congregation , though they be fewer in number . Now if this be so , then the thing in question is still as uncertain as before , and still wee are to seeke where the power of censures or Iurisdiction doth finally reside . For in the one place our Brother tels us , Christ never gave power of male-administration to a Congregation , and in the other he tels us the like of a Classis or great Presbytery , and that Christ hath given no power to any Church to erre . By which sayings we are left at great uncertainty : for still the question will be whether the Congregation doth erre or no , and so whether the Classis do erre or no , and unlesse it be determined who must judge of this , we are still but where wee were , and no neerer an issue then before .

This indeed is most true and must be so acknowledged , that though the Lord Almighty have given a power unto Societies , whether they bee families , Common-wealths , or Churches , and have made sundry of them subordinate to none other the like Societies in the exercise of their power , but to have supremacy of power within themselves , yet he hath also given them just and holy rules in his word for the directing of them in the use of this Power , from which rules it is not lawfull for them to swerve or go astray ; but if they do , it will be sin unto them , and he will surely require it of them : But now between these two the power it selfe and the abuse or right use of the power , we must carefully distinguish , for though abuse of their power bee not given of God , from whom comes nothing but good , yet the power it selfe being good is given of him , and is so to be acknowledged . And though abuse of their power do justly deserve at his hands that they should be deprived of the power it selfe , ye● God doth not alwayes forthwith deale with men according to their deserts herein , but many times continues still to them their power , though they have abused the same , much lesse doth he allow others to deprive them of this power because of every abuse thero● : witnesse among others the examples of the Pagan Princes in the Apostles times , who through their ignorance , infidelity , pride and other sins , could not but in great measure abuse their authority , and yet the Holy Ghost commands the Christians to be subject and obedient thereunto , Rom. 13. 1 , 2. &c. T it 3. 1. Not to obey them indeed , in doing evill at their commands , for in such case they must obey God rather then man , as Act 5. 29. Yet still they must be subject to the powers either actively or pa●●ively , even then when the powers were sinfully abused . Even so , if a family shall abuse their power , it doth not follow that other families , may lawfully for this cause take away their power from them : Or if a Corporation shall so offend , it will not follow that other Corporations may deprive them of their power . And if it be so in Commonwealths , and families , why may wee not say the same of Churches ? Or how will it follow , if a Church shall abuse their power , that other Churches in such eases may take away the power from such a Church ? For ought I see , this will not follow at all , no more then the other . For though Christ have not given to any Church a power of male administration as Mr. Rutherford speaks , yet hath he given to every Church a power of administration , which if they manage not aright but do abuse the same , the Lord Iesus will be displeased with them for this abuse , and other Churches may and ought to advise them and admonish them and testifie against them for the same ; but for the power it selfe , as Christ himselfe doth not forthwith deprive them thereof , so much lesse may other Churches take it from them , for who gave them this authority ? Per in parem non habet potestatem : and Churches are all of equall authority , and not one superior or inferior to another , as therefore when children or servants in a family are not governed as they ought to be , yet neighbour families have not warrant because of this male administration to invade the rights and destroy the power of such a family , even so it is in this case of Churches ▪ this male-administration in a Church is not forthwith a sufficient warrant for neighbour Churches to invade the rights of such a Church , and to take away its power from it . Especially if we do consider that this male-administration in a Congregation may possibly be but pretended and not reall , and that the administration of the Classes may paradventure be really such ; in which case Mr. Rutherford saith the power of the Classis is not of Christ , but their voices ought de jure to be swallowed up by the Congregation and the Elders thereof . This argument therefore from male-administration of the power of a Congregation , which Mr Rutherford saith , it is reason should be destroyed by another power added to it , meaning the power of a Classis is of no sufficient force to take away the power of a Congregation at all , not to establish the power of the Classis over the same , being as justly applyable against the Classis it selfe : Therefore for ought that doth yet appeare , supreame Ministeriall Church power which I conceive must needs be somewhere , may as well be in the Congregation as in the Classis , and can neither by this argument of male-administration nor by any other that we have yet seene , bee placed in the Classis any more then in the Congregation .

CHAP. XII . Whether it be against the light of Nature that the adverse party be judge ; and whether Mr. Rutherford can safely say that none of them do so teach , and whether this saying that parties may not be judges do make against entirenesse of power in a Congation , any more then in a generall or Nationall Councell .

THe next place where Mr. Rutherford deales with the Answer , is in his P. 456. Where alledging Mr. Tompson and me , Page 5. he hath these words as ours , viz. If it be against the light of Nature that the adverse party be the sole Iudge , which must be if the sole power of Iurisdiction be in the Congregation ( as wee grant in an extraordinary case and the Congregation is in an Iland it selfe alone ) and so it shall be lawfull for a single Congregation to do that which is against all equity , and the very light of Nature , it must then follow , that it is not against the light of Nature that a Congregation though consociated with other Congregations have entire Jurisdiction within it selfe .

Answ . Our words in the Page alledged are more prospicuous and cleere , then these which are here set down for ours : neither do wee make any mention of a Congregation in an Iland , nor yet of a Congregation consociated with other Churches , least of all do we say ( or report others to say ) that it is lawfull for a single Congregation to do that which is against all equity and the very light of Nature ; none of these things are ours . And therefore , that our true meaning may plainely appeare as it is , I will transcribe a few of our words , which are these , viz. Sure we cannot thinke that there can be such a case imagined , wherein you would grant it lawfull for a single Congregation to do that which is against all equity and the very light of Nature , and yet you grant that the case may be such that a single Congregation may have entirenesse of Jurisdiction within it selfe ; which seemes to us plainly to prove that for a Congregation to bee so independent as to be the finall Judge of offences within it selfe , is not against all equity nor against the light of Nature , as is intimated by you . These are our words , much differing from those which Mr. Rutherford sets down as ours , which I thought meet to relate out of the Answer , that our meaning might appeare as it is , and no otherwise . And now let us heare what our Brother subjoyneth for answer .

None of us , saith he , Do teach that it is against the light of Nature that the adverse party be the Iudge : it might fall out in a generall Councell lawfully convened from which their is no Provocation : Yea and in a Nationall Councell ( for all Councels may erre ) the adverse party may Judge ; as it was a lawfull Councell according to a Church constitution that condemned Christ of Blasphemy and they were also his enemies .

Answ . And may it not also fall out in a Provinc●all Synod , and in a Classis or Presbtytery of many Churches ? I suppose it cannot be denyed , but the Iudges in all these may be the adverse parties ; and so if the adverse party may not be Iudge , then neither generall nor Nationall Councels , nor Provinciall Synods , nor Classes , nor Presbyteries may be Iudges ; because there is none of these but possibly they may be parties . And so this argument , parties may not be Iudges , doth make no more against the Congregations power of judging , then against all Ecclesiasticall Assemblies whatsoever . Vnlesse therefore men would overthrow the power of all Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories whatsoever without exception of any , they can have no help from this Argument to overthrow the power of Iurisdiction in Congregations . Not to insist upon that which might also be truly alledged , that the Objection hath the like force , ( if any at all ) against civill Iudicatories .

But is it so indeed as our Brother affirmeth , that none of them do teach that it is against the light of Nature that the adverse party be the judge ? I thinke he should not thus have spoken , for I am much mistaken if the contrary hereunto be not certainly true . For first of all , I alledge the words of Reverend Mr , Herle , in his Book of Independency Page 5. alledged in the Answer : Page 6 , the very Pag. which here Mr Rutherford is dealing against . In which place of Mr. Herle there are these words , viz. That there ought to be graduall Judicatories , wherein the agrieved party may appeale from the lesser to the higher , that against the very light of Nature the adverse party be not the sole Iudge and party too in the cause , there can be no Ceremony or Type in this , Next of all I alledge the words of the same Reverend Author in his Page 10 ▪ ( Which is also alledged in the forementioned place of the Answer ) Where the words are these , What if a Brother offend not a particular Brother , but the whole Congregation ? What if ten Brethren offend the whole or part ? Shall we thinke the offence fals not within our Saviours remed or complaint or Appeale here ? That the offended party be not against all equity the sole and finall Judge of the offence . In which places wee see it is plaine , yet this Reverend Author counts it against the very light of Nature ; that the adverse party should bee Iudge and party too in the cause , and that it is against all equity that the party offended should bee sole and finall Iudge of the offence . And therefore it is marvellous that Mr. Rutherford should say that none of them do so teach : Yea , it is the more marvellous inasmuch as both these places of Mr. Herle are expresly mentioned in that very page of the Answer which here Mr. Rutherford is disputing against . And therefore it he had not remembred that himselfe had read the same in Mr Herle , as like enough he had , yet finding the same alledged by us in that Scripture of ou●s , it is marvell hee would not turne to the places alledged to search and see whether the thing were so or no , afore he had denyed the same . Whereas on the contrary , whether he searched or searched not , this we see that he roundly affirmes , that none of them do so teach ; to which saying I know not how to assent , our eyes having so plainly seene and read the direct contrary ,

Yea and further , it is yet more marvellous that Mr. Rutherford should thus write , considering not only what hath been already said , but also what himselfe hath written elsewhere : I will mention a few of his own sayings , and then himselfe shall be ●udge , whether the thing we have now in hand was by him advise●ly and well spoken . In his Pe●ceable Plea , Page 218 he hath these words , When the Graecian Church offendeth the Hebrew Church , the Hebrew Church cannot complaine to the Graecian Church , for the Law forbiddeth the party to bee Judge . And what Law hee meanes may be perceived by his words in Page 208. of the same Treatise , where he saith , If one man be wronged and see truth suffer by partiality , the Law of Nature will warrant him to appeale to an Assembly , where there is more light and greater Authority , as the weaker may fly to the stronger . Now let himselfe be judge whether in these testimonies compared , he do not teach , that it is against the Law of Nature that parties should be Iudge● , and that therefore men may appeale from them . Againe , those words Page 27 of the same Book are so plaine as that nothing can be more , These words saith he what soever yee bind on earth , &c. Must be meant only of the Apostles , and of the Church , verse 18. Yea , and it must exclude Peter and his offending Brother , suppose they were both beleevers ; because parties by the Law of Nature and Nations cannot be Iudges . Las●ly , those words are expresse in his Due Right of Presbytery , in his see ●nd P. 338 , 339. Where hee writes thus , If according to the Law of Nature and Nations , no man can be Iudge in his own cause , then are appeales from the Eldership of one Congregation , when they are a party to the caused person , Naturall — but the former is reason , Nature , Law of Nations . Ergo so is the latter . In the Assumption of which Sylogisme he plainly affirmes that it is reason , Nature , and the Law of Nations , that no man may be judge in his own cause , and by all this I suppose t● is manifest that the thing which he saith none of them do teach is expresly and plainly taught by some of them , and among others even by himselfe , who therefore ought not to have denyed the same , nor can bee cleered from much forgetfulnesse in so doing .

And if so great an oversight be found in him , I hope himself may thereby be intreated to be tender of agravating matters against us or others , at leastwise not so farre to agravate them , as to impute unto us matters which we do not hold : for a mans owne infirmities should make him more equitable and favourable towards others . And Christian Readers may be warned hereby not hastily to receive all that Mr. Rutherford hath written , afore they have duly examined and tryed the same , whether the things bee so or not , for wee see through forgetfulnesse or otherwise hee may greatly mistake himselfe , and misse of the truth , and give forth such sayings and expressions for truth , as are in no sort to be maintained but recalled , though neverthelesse he is otherwise a man of great worth , and so ever to be acknowledged .

We teach that it is not Congruous to the wisdome of Christ , nor to the light of Nature , that Christ should have appointed all the ordinary Church Courts , so many thousand Congregations , who may rather crie then extraordinary and higher Synods to bee the onely ordinary Iudges in their own cause .

Answ . These qualifications and limitations of the matter of parties being Iudges are such as to my remembrance I never heard given afore now . Now indeed it is said 1. That all Congregations being so many thousand . 2. May not be the only ordinary Iudges in their own cause , but it would bee against the wisdome of Christ and light of Nature if it should so be ; Yet formerly it was delivered absolutely and simply , that it is against the light of Nature for parties to be Iudges , without any such modifications and qualifications as now Mr. Rutherf . gives to help the matter withall . Neverthelesse by qualifying the thing in this sort , it seemes thereby to bee still granted that though so many thousand Congregations may not ordinarily be Iudge in their own cause , but the light of Nature will be against it , yet for some Congregations and at some times the thing may be allowed well enough : else why is the thing denyed only to so many Congregations , and ordinarily , if it be not thereby implyed that some Congregations and at some times may thus practise ? Now hereupon the question groweth , whether some at some times may bee allowed to do contrary to the light of Nature , though all may not : or whether the light of Nature bee changed when there comes to be many Congregations , and be not the same that it was before , when there was no more Congregations but one , whether I say some new light of Nature do arise with the rise of new Congregations , so that when they are many it would be against this light for them thus to bee Iudges , though it was not so when there was but one : or whether we must say the light of Nature remaining in the same , one Congregation remaining alone may be allowed to do contrary thereto , but many may not . It seemes to be inconvenient and ha●d to affirme either of these ; and yet the one or the other seemes unavoidable by this that Mr. Rutherford here teacheth . For let it be granted that a Congregation that is alone , yea a generall Councell , yea a Nationall Councell also may be Iudges in their own cause , and that no light of Nature is against the same , and yet many Congregations may not be so , but then the light of Nature will be against it , let these things I say be granted , which are all of them granted and taught by Mr. Rutherford , and then I desire to know how the inconveniences mentioned can be avoided ; I meane how it can be avoided , but either some men or Church Assemblies may lawfully do that which is against the very light of Nature , or else that the light of Nature is changed when many Congregations do arise , from that which it was when there was but one . Yea the difficulty and intrica●y in this way is yet more , if it be well considered . For first of all when a Congregation is alone , it is yeelded that it is not against Natures light for them to bee Iudges in their own cause . Secondly , when many Congregations do arise , now it is said it is against such light , that they should so be Iudges : Yet thirdly , when these Congregations do gather into a Nationall Councell , then this light of Nature will allow them to be Iudges , as in the first case of a single Congregation that is alone : And the same is also said of the generall Councell : so that here is strange varying and changing of the light of Nature , and of that which is against it , lawfull or unlawfull thereby . And when good reason and ground is given for the cleering of these things , we shall then consider further thereof , and see more then yet we do . In the meane time taking what is granted , that no light of Nature forbids a Congregation when it is alone , to have entirenesse of Iurisdiction within it selfe , nor forbids the same to the generall or Nationall Councels , I thinke it may thence be inferred , that the like must be allowed to Congregationall Churches that have neighbours , and that entirenesse of Iurisdiction in these is no more against the light of Nature , then in the other . For to say that one Congregation may have this entirenesse of Iurisdiction and the light of Nature allowe● it , and others may not but the light of Nature forbids it ; yea to say first the light of Nature allowes it , and then it forbids it , and then it allowes it againe , these are such abstruse and intricate things , yea so apparantly incongruous and inconsistent , that it passeth my understanding to perceive how they can stand together .

CHAP. XIII . Whether the Churches at Thessalonica and Ierusalem , were each of them more then one Congregation ; and of Mr. Baynes his Iudgement therein . Of the Assembly mentioned Luke 12. And whether our Saviour did there speake to his Disciples onely , or to all the people also .

IT is a wonder to me saith our Author Page 457. That Thessalonica was but one Congregation — yet the Apostle ascribeth to them that which is a note to worthy Baynes of the unmerous multitude of the Church of Jerusalem , from whence went the word of Ged to all the World. 1 Thes . 1. 8. For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not onely in Macedonia , and Achaia , but in every place your Faith to God-ward is spread abroad .

Answ . All this doth not hinder but Thessalonica might be one Congregation , though perhaps a great one . For that the word did sound out from them to others , and their Faith to Godward was spread abroad , what is there in all this to prove they were many Congregations in one Church ? And for Mr. Baynes whom our Author worthily counts a worthy man , there is nothing in him that will serve Mr. Rutherford his purpose , but much that makes for the contrary . For it is well known in his Diocesans Triall he maintaines at large , that Churches by the appointment of Chr●st are Congregationall , and denyes that one Congregation may be one Church : and in the particular instances of the Church , at Jerusalem , at Co●i●th , at Ephesus , at Antioch and others , he holds the very same that we do , and the direct contrary to that which Mr. Rutherford stands for . And therefore whereas he wonders that Thessalonica should bee one Congregation , considering what the Apostle saith of them , and what Mr. Baynes hath said of Jerusalem , I may more justly wonder that he should once mention Mr. Baynes in this cause . For if ever there was man in this world that deny●d many Congregations to be one Church , and allowed onely such Churches to be instituted of Christ as may meete ordinarily in one Congregation , this Mr. Baynes was one of them ; and therefore a wonder it is to me that Mr. Rutherford should thinke to have help from him in this question . But let us consider what it is that Mr Baynes doth say of the Church at Ierusalem : Why , this which the Apostle affirmeth of the Thessalonians Mr. Baynes doth make a note of the numerous multitude of the Church at Ierusalem . But doth hee make it a note of many Congregations in one Church at Ierusalem ? If he do , this were something to the purpose , I grant . But I hope Mr. Rutherford will not so report of Mr. Baynes ; For it is plaine Mr. Bayne● doth not so speake , but expresly saith the direct contrary ; and therefore what ever numerous multitude might be in that Church , and what ever might be a note of such multitude , except Mr. Baynes had said that the multitude was such as made many Congregations and yet all but one Church ( which he never said but the contrary ) there is no help to be had from Mr. Baynes in this businesse . For who knoweth not that there might be a numerous multitude , and yet but one Congregation ? Sure in Mr. Baynes his judgement it might be so , and therefore though hee grant a numerous multitude in this Church at Jerusalem , yet Mr. Rutherford purpose for many Congregations in Thessal●nica and yet all but one Church , is not gained , nor at all holpen thereby .

Which will better appeare if Mr. Baynes his Argumentation in the place which I conceive Mr. Rutherford aymes at , be considered in Page 3. of his Diocesans Tryall , he propounds an Argument of theirs who would have many Congregations to be one Church , taken from the example of the ancient Churches of Rome and Alexandria , laid down in these words : If the multitude of Christians did in Ierusalem so increase within a little time , that they exceeded the proportion of one Congregation , how much more likely is it that Christians in Rome and Alexandria did so increase in 200 yeares , that they could not keepe in one particular Assembly : But the first is true , Ergo also the latter . Now when he cames to answer this Argument , Pag. 18 , 19. What doth he then say . First of all he saith , The Proposition is not of necessary consequence , for there were saith he very extraordinary reasons of that which was effected in Ierusalem : And so he proceeds to mention 5 , or 6. reasons in particular , of which one is this which it may be Mr. Rutherford hath an eye unto , that the state of this Church was such as that it was to send out light to all others , a common aursery to the World. And therefore if the thing were granted that in Jerusalem there was a numerous multitude , yea such a multitude as could not be contained in one Congregation , yet saith he , It doth not follow from this particular to the so great increasing of these Churches , to wit , of Rome and Alexandria in tract of time . And even so may I say , it doth not follow to the so great increasing of the Church of the Thessalonians , there being such extraordinary reasons for that which was effected in Ierusalem , as neither Rome nor Alexandria , nor yet Thessalonica could alledge the same . And this is his Answer to the Proposition . But for the Assumption , where Mr. Rutherford his help must chiefly lye , to wit , that the multitude of Christians in Ierusalem did exceed the proportion of one Congregation , this Mr. Baynes doth expresly deny : not to mention , saith he , That we do deny the Assumption . Therefore , the Proposition being by Mr. Baynes not yeelded , and the Assumption expresly denyed , I see not how Master Rutherford can have any help to his cause from either of both .

He denyes not , he saith , What Mr. Tompson and I do say , that 5000 may meet to hear the word , many thousands were gathered together , Luke 12 to heare Christ .

Answ . If this be not denyed , then suppose there were 5000 or more in the Church at Ierusalem , it doth not follow therefore that that Church was many Congregations , and so our purpose is gained .

But we , he saith , Leave out the inconveniences of thronging so all at once , for they trod one upon another . Second , Christ Preached not to all those thousands at once , for it is expresly said verse 1. Hee began to say to his Disciples ; so , Christ refusing to Preach to such a disorderly confluence of people , who could not heare , and his Doctrine being all for his Disciples , the very Sermon being Preached to his Disciples onely — evidenceth to me that Christ condemneth a numerous multitude to heare at once .

Answ . The Question is not about the conveniency or inconveniency of such excessively great Assemblies ; but whether there be an impossibility in Nature , and reason , that so many as are said to bee in the Church at Ierusalem should assemble and come together in one Congregation ; for this is sometimes said for the proving of sundry Congregations in that one Church . Now if this be not impossible , then the plurality of Congregations in that one Church cannot bee concluded by those great multitudes that were therein . And that it is not impossible for such great multitudes to come together in one Congregation , the Scripture alledged Luke 12 , doth witnesse . If they trod one upon another , that might argue the Assembly was very great , and that they were very desirous to bee neere unto our Saviour for their better hearing , but doth not at all prove that such multitudes are so great as that they cannot possibly be spoke unto and heare in one Congregation . And therefore , whereas our Brother saith , Christ preached not to all those thousands at once , and that he refused to Preach to such a disorderly confluence of People , With favour of so worthy a man , I thinke the truth is otherwise . For though he began to speak to his Disciples , verse 1. And exhorted them against worldly carefulnesse , verse 22. Yet others who were not Disciples were present , and did also heare his Sermon : Witnesse that in verse 13. Where it is said that one of the company ( interrupting our Saviour as it seemes ) demands of him that hee would speake to his Brother about dividing the Inheritance ; to whom our Saviour makes answer , verse 14. Which plainly ●hewes that all the p●esent company were not Disciples . Yea whereas it is said , that hereupon our Saviour spake to them of bewaring and taking heed of Coveteousnesse , verse 15. And sp●ke a Parable to them of a certain rich man , verse 16. And after this said to his Disciples , verse 22. Take ●o thought for your life what you shall eate , &c. It appeareth hereby that these persons spoken to afterward verse 15 , 16 , &c. Were not the Disciples , who were spoken to afterward , verse 22. But were some other people besides . And what can be more plaine then that in verse 54. where it is expresly said , that Christ spake unto the people , rebuking them for their hypocrisie , that could discerne the face of the Skye , and of the Earth , but could not discerne that time ? And he said also to the people , saith the Text ; doth it not plainly appeare hereby that as Myriads of people were gathered together , ver . 1 So our Saviour spake the word unto those people ? I suppose the thing is manifest , and that therefore our Brothers words cannot stand , when he saith , That Christ Preached not to that confluence of people , but refused so to do , his Doctrine being all for his Disciples , For we see the Holy Ghost witnesseth that hee spake not onely to his Disciples , but to the people also : Chemniti●s hath these words , Neg●ri non potest ●n hac satis prolixi concione , &c. It cannot bee denyed that Christ in this long Sermon of his , directed his speech first to his Disciples , second to his friends , Third to one of the company . Fourth to Peter demanding a question . Fift to all the multitude , and it seemes the Ev●ngelist was willing as it were to reckon up these severall parts or members of the Sermon , Harmon . chap. 110. And the Refuter of Dr. Downams Sermon saith , The mention of many thousands in Jerusalem doth not make the number such as by no meanes could meete together in the publike worship of God , seeing it is apparent , Luke 12. 1. that the people which assembled unto Christ and partake his ' Doctrine were also many Myriads : and albeit he began at the first to speake to his Disciples verse 1. Yet afterward he spake to all the people assembled , ver . 13. 15. 54. Reply P. 2. P. 90. Wherefore though our Brother say Christ spake not to these multitudes of people but to his Disciples onely , yet sith wee have the ●ext it selfe , and the judgement of two Divines of chiefe note , expresly witnessing the contrary , therefore we cannot assent to him herein . Whereas Chrysostome saith 5000 did heare his voyce at once in one Congregation by meanes of Scaffolds and Galleries , and Mr. Mather is willing to yeeld 8120 were all assembled in one place to heare the word , and that all the multitude of Converts at Ierusalem were together in Solomons Porch Acts 5 12. I grant 3000 could heare at once , but alas &c Page 458. Answ . If Chrysostomes testimony be of any weight , or Mr. Baynes his testimony by whom Chrysostome is alledged Diocesans Triall , Page 16. Then a must be granted that not only 3000 , but a greater number , even 50●0 at least may heare the word at once . And if so , then 5000 members in the Church at Ierusalem will not prove plurality of Congregations in one Church , forasmuch as here are 5000 people and yet no more Congregations but one .

But alas this is a great uncertainty for independant Congregations , but this is to be proved , first that 8000 ( Mr. Mather hath not added many other multitudes mentioned , Acts 5. 14. & 6. 17. ) did meete dayly in the Temple . Second , dayly or ordinarily from house to house . Third , to celebrate the Lords Supper dayly in the Temple and in every private house , and there were need of many Scaffolds and Galleries , to sit at one Table . Fourth , to make one Judicature , &c.

Answ . He that shall look upon the Answer Page 34 will plainely see that I have here spoken to both those places of Acts 5. 14. & 6 1. Shewing that neither of them do prove a plurality of Congregations in this Church at Ierusalem , but rather the contrary . And therefore this Parenthesis which doth intimate that I have omitted to speake to these places , must not be assented to , but denyed .

But why must these foure particulars be proved ? I suppose he meanes because of that which is said Act. 2 46. They continued dayly with one accord in the Temple , &c. But this doth not cleere it , that these foure particulars must needs be proved , and the reason is ; First , because Iudicature which is one of the particulars , is not mentioned at all in that Scripture ; nor is it said by us , that a dayly exercise thereof is necessary in every Church or in any . Second , the Lord Supper , which is another of the particulars , is not mentioned at all in that Text , at leastwise not in those words or termes which Mr. Rutherford sets down ; much lesse is it said as he expresseth it , that they did dayly celebrate the same both in the Temple and in every private house : nor can the same for ought I know be proved by this or by any other Scripture , nor was such a thing ever affirmed by us , so farre as I know . I suppose if they had celebrated it in the Temple alone , or in some private house or houses alone , that might have been sufficient , without any necessity of celebrating the same in both places upon one day , both in the Temple and in the houses too . Nay it is a question whether the Lords Supper bee at all intended in this place ; though I doubt not but they observed that Ordinance , and verse 42. may possibly teach so much . But for the verse we are speaking of , viz , Verse 46 ▪ there is no necessity that the breaking of Bread there spoken of , must needs be meant of that Ordinance . Sure he was a judicious expositor who understands it otherwise , Quod hic fractionem panis &c. That is , whereas some expound breaking of Bread in this place of the Lords Supper , it seems to me to be farre from Lukes intention : Calvin in Act. 2. 46. So then , of Mr Rutherfords foure particulars which he saith we must prove , there is not past the halfe of them that needs to be proved at all , the two last being already removed . And for a third which is of breaking of Bread dayly and ordinarily from house to house , understand this breaking of Bread as Calvin doth , of their civill repast , and then it hurts not our cause at all , though it be yeelded that they did dayly meet for such purpose in severall companies , in their private houses ; for this they might do and bee no more but one Congregation . There remaines therefore onely one that needs to be proved , namely the first , that they did dayly meete in the Temple ; and this may bee proved with case , because the plain words of the Text do affirme it , They continued dayly with one accord in the Temple ; so that yet we have found nothing that proves Ierusalem to be many Congregations in one Church .

Nay I conceive , that one of these foure particulars , viz. The first , of their dayly meeting in the Temple , doth apparently shew that how great soever the number was , yet it was not exceeding the proportion of one Congregation , which might come together in one place ; For the Temple was but one in all the City , I meane there was but onely one individuall Temple , and not many Temples , which if there had been then our Brethren might possibly have said , that they met distributively in sundry lesser companies , but were to many too meete all in one Congregation ; for so they were wont to expound sundry other phrases used by the Holy Ghost , to declare their comming together . True say they , they come together , but how ? Not collectively all of them together in one place , they were too many for that ; but they came together distributively , some of them in one place , and some in another , and so they think they have answered sufficiently . But now to this of their meeting together in the Temple , they cannot answer so ; for then there should have been sundry Temples , in which they might have met , distributed into sundry companies ; but there being no more Temples but one , and the Text affirming plainly that they all met with one accord , in the Temple , it must needs be , that they met collectively , all of them together in one and the same place ; and hence it followeth , that they were not so many but still they might be one Congregation as well as one Church .

So that of the foure particulars , which he saith we must prove , some wee see need not to be proved at all , and the first of them which we can prove with case doth make much for the weakning of his cause , and for the strengthening of ours .

Yea Mr. Mather will have the whole containing as one independant Congregation , Act. 6. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4. And the many Myriads or thousands of beleeving Jewes , Acts 21. 21 , 22 , 23. To meete as one Congregation .

Answ . When in the Answer I speake of these places , the word Independant was not there used by me at all , but only is here added by himselfe , for what cause himselfe can best tell . But for the matter , I conceive the thing which I there delivered is cleere from the Texts themselves , that the multitude of those Iewes did assemble and come together , in one place ; for as for one of the places Act. 6. It is expresly there said that the Apostles called the multitude together to propose unto them the choice of Deacons , verse 2 ▪ and bad them look out from amongst themselves seaven Men , qualifyed as the Apostles do there describe , verse 3. whereupon it is said that the saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose seaven who are there named verse 5. and presented them unto the Apostles that they might lay their hands on them , verse 6. Which plainely shewes that the whose multitude how many soever they were , yet were not so many , but they might all assemble in one place , to heare matters proposed to them , to consider thereof , and upon liking to put them in execution , as in other things so in this particular , of making election of Officers , as there they are Recorded to have done . And as for the other place Act. 21. though it be a Question , whether those many thousand Iewes , that beleeved were all members , of that one Church at Jerusalem , yet it cannot be any question , whether they might come together in one place , sith Iames and the Elders do expresly there say unto Paul , the multitude must needs come together , for they will heare that thou art come . Nor can we say they might come together onely distributively , in sundry companies , but not all in one place , for the end of their comming together will not beare that exposition , which end was , that they might see , and heare Paul , and try what satisfaction he would give them , in the matter whereof they were informed of him , that he taught the Iewes , to forsake Moses , and to omit Circumcision and other Iewish customes . These things they were informed to have been taught by him amongst the Gentiles , and hearing that he was come to the City , they must needs come together to heare what he would say to the matter , and how hee would cleere himselfe . Now if this was the end of their comming together it must needs be that their comming was altogether unto one place , and not in severall companies ; for this could not answer their end , inasmuch as Paul being but one person , it was not possible they could see him , nor heare him in sundry places at once ; and therefore they might as well have staid at home , and not have come together at all , as come together in such sort .

Plaine it is therefore , that the multitude spoken of in these two Scripures were not so many but they might meete in one Congregation .

Which point as something hath been said in the Answer P. 34 , 35. For the cleering of it , so I am the more confirmed in it by Mr. Rutherford his dealing concerning these Scriptures . For though he make mention of them in this place , as we see , and of that apprehension of mine concerning those Scriptures , yet he doth not at all remove the grounds , which were given for that apprehension in the Answer , but doth wholly passe them by in silence . Now taking occasion to speak of the Scriptures , and relating what my apprehension was concerning the same , and yet saying nothing at all to the gronnds , whereon that apprehension was built , it seemes hereby to bee implyed that indeed he had nothing in readinesse to object against the same . So that I may still conceive of those Scriptures as I did before , for any thing yet brought to induce me to be of another mind .

As for that which next followes , certainly the Apostles practice must be our rule , and then 500 or 1000 being so farre beneath 10 or 8000 , may well seeme a number for fewnesse not competent , and what shall wee then thinke of 7 only , or 10.

Answ . The answer is , that the Apostles practise doth not at all condemn ours , though our Congregations have not in them the like numbers , but sometimes more and sometimes lesse ; for was it not so in that Primative Apostolike Church ? Is it not plain , that that Church was for number farre lesser at the first , then afterward , when they grew to 4000 or more ; and yet after this they grew to be fewer againe , when Persecution scattered them all abroad except the Apostles , Act. 8. 1. And therefore if 10 or 8000 , being once the number in that Church , be a rule condemning out Churches , as being for fewnesse not competent , when they are beneath that number , how will it be avoided but by the same reason the practise of that Church at one time , shall be a rule , for the condemning of it self at another time ? For sure it is , their number was not at all times alike , but sometimes more , and sometimes lesse ; as in the Sea it is not alwayes full tyde , but sometimes low ebbe , nor is the Moone alwayes at full , but sometimes at the Change ; Nay if the Apostles practise must be our rule , then inasmuch as their Churches , had not alwayes the like numbers of members in them , but sometimes the number was greater , and sometimes lesser , it will follow therefore that the number of members in our Churches needs not alwayes to bee the same , but though greater numbers be lawfull , yet the lawfulnesse of lesser numbers may not be denyed .

CHAP. XIV . Whether the Church at Corinth was one Church , meeting distributively in sundry Congregations , or whether it was onely one Congregation . And whether 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church came together in some place &c. Doe make for sundry Congregations or for one onely .

PAge 464. I cannot but thinke that weake which Mr. Mather and Mr. Tompson say ( Answer Page 37. ) the place 1 Cor. 14. 23. That speaketh of the whole Church comming together to one place doth unavoidably prove , that Corinth had their meetings and not by way of distribution into severall Congregations , but altogether in one Congregation : and it is plaine , that though they had variety of teachers and Prophets , yet they all used to come together to one place .

Answ . If that which wee say be weake , it is more easie for one of such ability and strength as Mr. Rutherford to overthrow the same . Yet it is not words that will suffice , but weight of reason that must availe thereto . Let us heare therefore his Answer to this passage which he thinkes and censures to be so weake .

The place saith he , 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church come together &c. Deth evince the contrary . For the Apostle doth there reason ab absurdo , from a great incongruity : it were incongruous saith he , and ridiculous that the whole Church of Corinth and all their guifted men speaking with Tongues ( so that they could not be understood by Infidels ) should all Convene in one place , and speake with divers Tongues : For the unlearned and unbeleevers would say they were madde ; therefore hee presupposeth that the whole Church should not all come to one place , but that they should so come to one place , in divers Assemblies . —

Answ . And is it true indeed , that this place doth evince the contrary ? viz. That the Church at Corinth did not all meet in one Congregation : How shall we be assured that such a thing is evinced by the place ? For as for the reason given , &c. That the Apostle d●th there reason ab absurdo , or from great incongruity , this doth not prove the thing at all , partly because they might practise something that were not meete but had incongruity in it , and partly ( and more especially ) because the Apostle doth not lay the absurdity where Mr. Rutherford layes it , viz. In the convening of the whole Church in one place , but in their speaking with strange Tongues when they were convened and come together .

Touching the former of these , Mr. Rutherford reasoneth to this effect . If it were an incongruous or un●it thing that the whole Church at Corinth should come together in one place , then they did not so come together : but the first is true , Ergo the second is true also . In which kind of reasoning ( such is our weaknesse ) we thinke neither part of the argument to be free from just exception . For as we wholly deny the Assumption , so we also thinke there is no sufficient strength of consequence in the maine Proposition , forasmuch as sundry things were practised in that Church which were no wayes fit not meet to be practised , and which the Apostle doth therefore reprove , and seekes the redresse of the same : witnesse their Factions and divisions : Chap. 1. & 3. Their neglecting Church censures against the incestuous person , and on the contrary being puffed up , Chap. 5. their going to Law one with another before the Infidels , Chap. 6. their abuses in Prayer and Prophesying , their women uncovered and their men covered , Chap. 11. their abuses in the Lords Supper , when they so came unto it that one was hungry and another drunken , Chap. 11. Now as it were an unsufficient kind of arguing to say , these things were unfit and unmeet , and therefore that Church did not so practise , even so Mr. Rutherford his arguing seemes to be no better , who would prove they did come together in one place , because the Apostle , as he thinks , did count such comming together unmeet . For if it were granted that such a comming had been unmeet , yet it doth not follow , but such might bee their practise notwithstanding : and therefore as hee counts our apprehension in this matter to be weak , so I leave it to himself and others to consider , whether in this consequence , It was not meet they should all come together in one place , Ergo they did it not , be very strong .

I desire here not to be mistaken : for I do not grant that their comming together in one place was unmeet , nor that the Apostle doth reprove them for the same ; I have already said the contrary , in denying the Assumption afore mentioned , which I do still deny . But the thing I intend , is to consider the strength of Mr. Rutherford his reasoning , and for that cause to apply it to the thing in question , which I still desire to keepe close unto , if it may be . Now the thing in question , being this , whether the Church at Corinth , were so many at that they could nor meet together in one Assembly , but had many Congregations , and all but one Church , and Mr Rutherford maintaining the affirmative , and bringing this reason for it , taken from the Congruity of meeting all together , I therefore thought meet , to weigh the strength of this reason , which I do not perceive to be in any wise convincing : but supposing the Apostle had counted such meetings , inconvenient and unmeet , yet this reason as I conceive , is too weak to prove Mr. Rutherford his purpose , that their number was such as that they could not all possibly meet in one place ; for they might possibly do that which were unmeet to be done , in this particular as well as they did in many other things .

But in this particular I do not thinke , they did any thing absurd , or unmeet at all ; and therefore for further answer to this reason I would say : that the Apostle doth not say the absurdity , where Mr. Rutherford layes it , to wit , in that the whole Church did convene , and come together , but in speaking with strange Tongues when they were convened , this latter being incongruous : and absurd indeed ; for the Infidels comming into the Church Assembly , and hearing them so speake , might thinke them madde , as the Apostle sayes ; but for assembling all in one place , I know no madnesse that was in that ; nor shew thereof ; nor do I yet beleeve that the Apostle doth place the absurdity there . For though Mr. Rutherford bee a worthy man and learned , yet such a thing as this had need of some further proofe then his bare word . If a Church should meet distributively in divers Assemblies , and being so met should speake with strange Tongues , I demand whether this manner of speaking , do prove such a way of meeting absurd ; I suppose he will say no , because it is the way of meeting which he holds the Apostolike Churches did use ; And if so , then suppose they should so speake with strange Tongues , when they meet collectively all in one Assembly , how can this manner of speaking conclude the absurdity of such kind of meeting any more then it did in the other ? For my part , though such kind of speaking have incongruity and inconveniency in it , yet I conceive assembling collectively and in one Congregation is no more prejudiced thereby , then assembling distributively in many .

Hee ( that is the Apostle ) presupposeth that the whole Church should come to one place , in divers Assemblies , and all Prophecy in a Tongue known to the Infidels , as the unbeleever being convinced and judged of all the Prophets might fall down in his face , &c.

Answ . If the Prophets were met in divers Assemblies at once , I marvell how the unbeleever should be convinced and judged of them all ; for I hope one singular and individuall unbeleever was not present in divers Assemblies at once , nor convinced and judged ( as here he is said to be ) by those Prophets , from whose Assembly he was absent . Eithe● therefore the Prophets were all met in one Assembly and not in divers , or else it is yet a Quaere how he could be convinced by them all . For sure the unbeleever could not be present in sundry Assemblies at once .

Page 465. The whole Church is not the whole much people of Corinth that beleeved , that did ordinarily meet in one place , the Text saith no such thing , and that is to be proved and not taken as granted .

Answ . Suppose it were true , that the whole Church was not the whole much people of Corinth that beleeved , this doth nothing prejudice our cause , for as much as our Question is not about the whole much people that beleeved , but about the whole Church . If therefore it be granted that the whole Church collectively did come together in one place , we have what we desire , and require no more . As for the whole much people that beleeved , whether this be the same with the former or no , wee shall have no need to prove or take for granted that these did in like manner come together , for as much as our question in the termes of it is not about these , but about the other .

But why is not the whole Church the whole much people that beleeved ? Shall we say the whole Church is more then the people that beleeved ? Or shall wee say it is not so much ? I conceive it must be one of these , or else it must be the same . If it be said it is more , then still we have our desire , if not more then we demand . For if a company that is greater then all the much people that beleeved , were neverthelesse not so great , but they might and did assemble in one Congregation , then that much people that beleeved might so assemble much more . For if there be no impossibility but a company that is greater may so assemble , I suppose the same cannot bee denyed of a company that is lesser . Againe , to say this whole Church was a greater number then the much people that beleeved , is directly to gainsay himselfe , who in Page 460 , 461. Makes the much people a greater number then the Congregation meeting for the Word , Sacraments , and Church censures ; because such a Congregation , he saith , could not conveniently exceed one thousand , whereas the much people must bee much in comparison of thousands of Jewes who rejected Christ , for that otherwise it would not have beene much for Pauls comfort , for which end it is mentioned and brought .

If it be said the whole Church be lesse then the people that beleeved , then it followes that some of those beleevers were not of the Church , and so what himselfe hath written , Page 125. 242. 251. will not stand . For in Page 125 , hee saith , That the Seale of Baptisme and the profession of the truth is that which makes one member of the visible Church — and by this are all the Citizens and domesticks in-Churched , and received into a visible Church . And Page 242. He saith any who blamelessely professe Christ is Ecclesiastically — in foro Ecclesiae , a true and valid member of the Church visible , having Ecclesiasticall power valid for that effect , and Page 251. he saith , a visible profession of the truth and Doctrine of golinesse is that which essentially constituteth a visible Church and every member of the visible Church . Now if these things be so , then it followes that this whole people that beleeved were all of them members of the Church , inasmuch as they were all partakers of Baptisme and profession , which he saith do essentially constitute the visible Church and every member thereof . And they were all members of the Church , then the Church was not a lesser company then they .

Nor can hee say it was a greater company , for the reasons mentioned before .

And if it was neither a greater company nor a lesser , was it not then the same . And if it was the same , then how can this stand which he affirmeth in the place wee have in hand , where hee saith the whole Church is not the whole much people that beleeved ? It seemes to me , that which way soever he shall take , his own pen will be witnesse against himselfe ; for in the place wee have in hand , hee saith the whole Church is not the whole much people that beleeved : and in another place hee tels us , that the much people that beleeved was a greater number then the whole Church meeting for Word , Sacraments , &c. And yet in a third place hee tels us , that in effect it was not greater , inasmuch as all Baptized professing beleevers , hee saith , are of the Church .

Further , when the Text speakes of the whole Church comming together in some place , let the wise judge whether it be a good Exposition to say , by the whole is not meant the whole , but only a part . Which I conceive is Mr. Rutherfords Exposition , who will not yeeld that the whole did come together in any one place , but part in one place , and part in another , the whole being distributed into severall parts , and those parts into severall places . So that the whole Church comming together into some place , must have this meaning , the whole came not together in any place , but part in one place and part in another , which I feare is too much violence offered to the Sacred Text , which should be handled with reverence .

But he brings a reason for this Exposition , and that is this , Because else we must say that at any one Assembly all the Prophets and teachers did Prophesy at Corinth ; for the Text saith , he is convinced of all , he is judged of all , whereas the consequence should bee absurd , it should bee a longsome and wearisome meeting , Page 465.

Answ . And if they Prophesyed not all in one Assem●ly but divers , how could the unbeleever bee convinced and judged by them all ? It will not bee easie to conceive how it could be , they Prophesying in such a way : for the unbeleever sure could not be present in sundry Assemblyes at once , but in one onely . And therefore , those words , he is convinced of all , he is judged of all , will lay as much absurdity upon his Exposition of the words as upon ours , or rather a great deale more . For as for ours , there is no absurdity therein at all , for asmuch as by all the Prophets is meant all that Prophesied at the time , when the unbeleever was present , and not that all must Prophesy upon one day as Mr. Rutherford would have it . But the Text doth not so say , nor any Interpreter that I have met withall . Sure I am Beza saith , the expresse contrary , for upon verse 31. Ye may all Prophesy one by one , &c. He hath this note , Non eodem sane die , sed ternis &c. That is indeed not all upon one day ( which is Mr. Rutherfords Exposition ) but three at every moeing , having their turne to speak till all had spoken by course .

Interpreters say they met in divers Assemblies , Page 465.

Answ . Let those Interpreters be named ; and there words set down , and then by Gods help we shall consider of what they say , and of the grounds and reasons thereof ▪ in the meane time to say that interpreters say it , and yet neither to tell us the reasons nor the words of those Interpreters , nor so much as the names of any of them , how should this prevaile with us to turne us away from our former apprehensions in the point ?

True it is in another place , &c. Pag 461. Speaking of verse 31. Yea may all Prophesy one by one , hee there tels us that Diodatus understands it that they might Prophecy , by course and in divers or sundry Assemblies ; And Essius , saith he , saith the same , to wit , that these Prophets were to Prophesy in divers Assemblies .

Answ . For Diodatus I have him not at hand , and therefore I cannot peruse the place ; But for Estius , this I may say , that he neither saith what here is reported in his Commentary upon the verse alledged , nor upon any verse else in all the Chapter , as farre as I can observe , and I have read and perused him on purpose to see what were to be found in him : But though I cannot find him affirming that which Mr. Rutherford brings him for , yet I find sundry places , wherein he seemes to me to affirme the contrary ; for instance , Commenting upon the verse alledged , hee hath these words as the sence which he most preferres , viz. Quod si non unus tantum Propheta sed plures &c. That is , If not only one Prophet but sundry , yea all do speake in the Assembly in order , it will come to passe that those all may also learne , and receive exhortation , there being never a one of them , who is not also a hearer . Wherein we see he speaks not one word of Prophesying in divers Assemblies at the same time , but that they were so to Prophesy that all of them were to be hearers , and learners , as well as speakers . Which doth plainly imply , that there must be many Prophets in one Assembly at once . Againe , upon verse ●9 , he hath these words as the sense of the place , Quamvis forte multi suit in Ecclesiae — vestra Prophetae &c. That is , Although perhaps there be many Prophets in your Church , yet it will be sufficient if two or three do speake at one meeting , and for others it shall be their duty to judge , that is to say , to examine and try whether these things be true and sound which are spoken by them that speake . Wherein he plainly shewes his judgement to be that at one meeting they were to have many Prophets present , of whom two or three onely were to speake , and the rest to try and examine what was spoken . And to the same purpose he speakes upon verse 32. Which he counts to be the same with that of judging , verse 29. Further these words verse 23. Of the whole Church comming together into one place , he expounds thus , Alicujus loci totus populus fidelis , That is , all the faithfull or beleeving people of a place ; which is contrary to Mr. Rutherford who will not have the whole Church , to be the whole much people that beleeved . Finally , speaking of those words verse 24. if all Prophesy , he hath these words , Nec omnes inteligit absoluté , &c. That is , the Apostle understands not all absolutely but to this sense , to wit , if all that speake in the Assembly of the Church do Prophesy , that is , if Prophets only do speake , and they that have the gift of Tongues do hold their peace . Which is contrary to Mr. Rutherford who understands the Text so , that they were all to Prophesie at one time ; and because at one meeting there were but two or three to Prophesie , which two or three hee thinkes could not be all , hee will therefore have it that they were distributed into severall Assemblies , and so did Prophesie all at once , though onely two or three at one meeting . For which interpretation , though he alledgeth Estius , yet Estius wee see affords him no help at all . Whereupon I have marvelled why Estius should be alledged , sometimes thinking with my selfe whether his name might not bee mis-Printed by the Printer , instead of some other man ; sometimes thinking whether Mr. Rutherford his memory might not faile him in this particular , having read the thing in some other Author , and supposing it had been in Estius . But what ever might be the reason of this mistake , he that shall examine Estius will not find in him any help at all for Mr. Rutherfords cause in this particular , but the contrary .

The Text saith expresly , verse 29 , that at one time they Prophesied but two or three .

Answer . This is a mistake also : for the words are , let the Prophets speake two or three , and let the other judge . Now let them do so , doth not shew their practise , but their duty : not what they did , but what they should have done . The Text saith , if there be no interpreter let him that hath an unknown Tongue keepe silence in the Church , verse 20. And let your Women keepe silence in the Churches , verse 34. Now shall any man say , that these Texts do expresly prove that it was the manner of their Women and of their men that had unknown Tongues to keepe silence . I suppose no man can say it , the words being not a report of what their practise was , but a rule of direction to shew them how they ought to practise . And so wee say of the case in hand . But let it be supposed that it was not onely their duty , but also their practise to Prophesie at one meeting but onely two or three , what can Master Rutherford gaine heereby ? His words following do tell us , where hee saith , If two onely Prophesyed at one Assembly , as this Text will warrant cleerely .

Answ . Not so , the Text allowes three , which is more then two onely . But go on , and let us heare the consequence .

Then how doth this whole Church consisting of all the beleevers at Corinth , as is supposed by our Brethren , convince the Infidell , so as it may beare this sence , he is convinced of all , he is judged of all ▪ Can two Prophets be all Prophets ?

Answ . Though wee suppose the whole Church consisted of all the Beleevers at Corinth , yet that the whole Church did convince the the Infidell , this wee never said nor supposed at all : For wee supposed and so do still , that hee was to bee convinced onely by the Prophets , besides whom there were many others that were of the Church .

But for his demand , Whether two Prophets can bee all Prophets , The answer is , that though two bee not all where there are more then two , yet if there bee no more , there it is otherwise ; and so where there are but two or three that doe Prophesie at one meeting , there hee that is convinced by those two or three , may bee said to bee convinced of all , that is of all that doe Prophesie . This sence of the place must needs bee received , else how shall the Apostles words bee reconciled and stand together ? For as in one verse hee requireth , that the Prophets speake two or three at one meeting , and the rest to Iudge , verse 29. And in another verse affirmeth that the Infidell in the case there proposed , is judged of all , verse 24. So hee doth not onely suppose in the very same verse , that they did all Prophesie , if all , Prophesie saith hee , and there come in one that beleeveth not , &c. But moreover in verse 31. Hee expresly and plainely allowes them thus to Prophesie ; Yee may all Prophesie , saith hee , one by one , that all may learne and all may bee comforted . Which places compared doe evince the sence of the words heere given , and doe plainely shew that what hee saith verse 24. Of the Infidell being convinced of all and judged of all , may bee truely made good , if hee bee convinced of all and Iudged of all that Prophesyed at that meeting , though their number that so Prophesyed were no more but two or three .

And therefore whereas hee concludes , Surely for my part I thinke it must unavoidably bee said , that they Prophesyed distributively and in severall Congregations , The Answer is , that this needs not to bee said at all , but may bee avoided with ●ase ; and the contrary may bee safely held ; to wit , that they Pro●●●cied collectively and in one Congregation .

For first , they did so Prophesy , that one that beleeved not , and one unlearned might come in amongst them when they were Prophesying , and by that meanes might bee convinced of all and judged of all , verse 24. Which might well bee done , if they Prophesyed all in one Congregation , but otherwise it could not , for as much as one unbeleever could not bee present in severall Congregations at once .

Secondly , they were so to Prophesie , that the Prophets when they Prophecied were to have the rest of the Prophets to bee 〈◊〉 , to heare and Iudge of that which was delivered , let the Prophets speake two or three , and the rest judge , verse 29. and the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets , verse 32. The former of which sayings Mr. Rutherford himselfe doth understand of a Colledge Prophets , having a power Dogmaticall of judging , and censuring the Doctrine of the Prophets delivered . What they speake , saith he , Page 467. Is to bee judged and put under censure ; for the whole Colledge must judge ; for which he alledgeth verse 29. And a little after , this is not a Power of judging which every Christian hath , for 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 saith Piscator doth relate to the Prophets , who are to judge ; but as ● take it a Propheticall judging , which may warrant the Iuridicall power of a Presbytery , &c. By all which it plainely appeareth that when the Prophets did Prophesy , the other Prophets were to bee present , to heare and judge of the Doctrines delivered ; and if so , how can it bee that they Prophesyed in severall Congregations at the same time ? For had it been so , they could not have judged of one anothers Doctrine , which they could not heare , being themselves at that time imployed in speaking in some other place .

And therefore it seemes more likely , that they met in one Congregation , where they might all Prophesy , first one and then another , some at one time and some at another , and so all of them might also heare and learne , and judge of the Doctrine delivered by others .

CHAP. XV. Whether the Church at Ephesus were more in number then Corinth and Jerusalem , and the judgement of Mr. Baynes ; Whether that Church was many Congregations , or one onely ?

PAg . 470. Having suggested sundry things , to prove that Ephesus was many Congregations , and yet but one Church ; hee concludes this , viz. upon these considerations , I leave to our reverend Brethren their judgement ; if Mr. Mather and Mr. Thompson say right , we doe not thinke they were more in number at Ephesus then in Corinth and Jerusalem , where the Christians met all in one place .

Answ . The exception then which in this place is taken against Mr. Thompson and me , is for this , that we doe not thinke the Christians at Ephesus , to be more in number then at Jerusalem and Corinth . Concerning which , I will not say much , but onely this , that as we have onely delivered what we think in this matter , without determining or asserting any thing peremptorily ; so we shall readily imbrace the contrary , when good grounds shall be shewed for the same : which though we doe not yet perceive to be performed in all that Mr. Rutherford hath said ; yet I will not here spend time in examining the same , because I do not count this point of so much importance concerning the principall thing in question . For whether the Church at Ephesus were more in number then Corinth and Jerusalem , or whether it were otherwise ; there is no great matter in this as touching the maine question . For if all of them were such Churches , as might usually meet together in one Congregation , as I conceive they were ▪ it matters not much which of them was most in number .

But doth not M. Rutherford prove that the one Church at Ephesus was more then one Congregation ? I confesse , he hath sundry things in the precedent pages , which he intendeth that way . But in asmuch as they doe not concerne M. Tompson and me in particular , nor are by him applyed against any passage in the answer ; I will therefore passe them over more briefly , my purpose being chiefly , to consider of such particulars , wherein he takes exception against the Answer . Only , thus much I would advertise the Reader , that a good part of that which Mr. Rutherf . brings to prove many Congregations in one Church at Ephesus , hath been answered long agoe by Mr. Baynes in his Diocesans triall , pag. 5. which I the rather Commend to Mr. Rutherfords consideration , because , he counts him a man of worth , calling him worthy Baynes : And for the help of such Readers , as cannot readily come to the book it self , I will here transcribe a few lines out of the same worthy Baynes , as they are to be found in his Dioces . triall . p. 5 , 6. viz.

The Church of Ephesus was but one flock ; First , it is likely that it was of no other forme then the other . ( Sir , Ierusalem , Antioch and Corinth , which he had before shewed to be each of them one Congregation . ) Secondly , it was but one flock , that which Presbyters might joyntly feed : they had no Diocesan Paster : If Presbyters onely , then none but Parishonall Churches in and about Ephesus : theremay be many flocks , but God ordained none but such as may wholely meet with those who have the care of feeding and governing of them : Peter indeed 1 Pet. 5. 2. calleth all those he writteth unto one flock , but that is in regard either of the mysticall estate of the faithfull , or in respect of the common nature , which is in all Churches one and the same : but properly and in externall adunation , one flock is but one Congregation . Thirdly , Parishes according to the adverse opinion were not then divided : Neither doth the long and fruitfull labours of the Apostle argue that there should bee Parish Churches in Diocesan wise added , but a great number of Sister Churches . But when it is said , that all Asia did heare , the meaning is that from hand to hand , it did runne through Asia ; so as Churches were planted every where , even where Paul came not , as at Collosse : there might be many Churches in Asia , and many converted by Peter , and others fruitfull labours , without subordination of Churches .

CHAP. XVI . Whether the Church at Antioch was onely one Congregation , and whether Acts 14. 27. and 15. 30. doe not prove the Affirmative .

THE Answer , having in pag. 5. alledged Acts. 14. 27. and 15. 30 , 31. to prove that the Church at Antioch was no more then might be gathered together into one place , Mr. Rutherford in Answer hereto saith , p. 472 , 473. That the place Acts 14. 27. is the representative Church , and that he beleeveth the Assembling of the multitude , Acts 15. vers . 30. must be taken distributively .

Answ . This answer of Mr. Rutherfords , to the former place , was removed long ago by worthy Mr. Baynes , who also understands the latter place as we doe , and not as Mr. Rutherford : For in his Dioces . triall , maintaining this position , that the Churches instituted by the Apostles , were onely such as might meet in one Congregation ordinarily , and giving this very place and instance of the Church of Antioch , for one of his grounds , for confirming the said position , p. 5. Hee comes imediately thereupon to answer an objection , which is the very same that here Mr. Rutherford brings to the former place , viz. that the Church mentioned in that place , was the Ministers or representative Church : for the removing whereof Mr. Baynes returneth 4. things , 1. that the word Church , is never so used : 2. He argues by analogy from that Acts 11. where Peter gives account before the whole Church , even the Church of the faithfull , and therefore in like sort , Paul and Barnabas might report before the whole Church of the faithfull , what things God had done by them . 3. Saith he , they made relation to that Church which had sent them forth , with Prayer and Imposition of Hands ; and this Church stood of all those who assembled to the publicke service and worship of God , ( which is cleere , Acts 13. 2. ) 4. His fourth particular is this other place of Acts 15. vers . 30. where , saith he , the people of the Church of Antioch were gathered together , to consider of Decrees sent them by the Apostles from Ierusalem , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . In all which , we cleerly perceive the judgement of this worthy man to be the same with us , and as clearly against Mr. Rutherford , as can be expressed , which being so , and his judgement being delivered upon such reasons , as seem to me weighty , and which Mr. Rutherford doth not remove ; I therefore see no sufficient reason to think otherwise of the Church of Antioch then formerly .

For as for M. Rutherford his reason to prove the place , Acts 14. 27. to be meant of a representative Church , viz. That they met for a matter of Discipline , at least for a matter that concerned all the Churches , to wit , to know how God had opened the doore of saith unto the Gentiles : The answer is , that this doth not evince the thing : 1. Because rehearsing , how God had opened the doore of Faith unto the Gentiles , being neither admission of Members , nor of Officers , nor any matter of censure , nor any thing else ; but onely a meer declaration of the gracious workings of the Lord , cannot be any matter of Discipline , as I conceive .

2. Suppose it were a meeting for matter of Discipline , must it needs be a meeting for Elders alone , without the presence of the faithfull ? Will Mr. Rutherford deny it to be l●wfull for any to be present at matters of Discipline , but onely the Elders ? I suppose he will not deny it at all , sure I am he hath heretofore written otherwayes ; Peaceable Plea p. 49. Where he granteth that all matters of Discipline must be done with the peoples consent , and alledgeth about 19. or 20. Divines old and new for the same Tenet . Now if matters of Discipline must be done with the peoples consent , then the people must be present thereat ; For else they give their consent blindefold . And if they must be present at such matters ; then suppose the matter mentioned in the Scripture we have in hand , had been of that nature , yet the Church that was gathered together about the same , needed not to be a representative Church of Elders alone , as Mr. Rutherford would have it , but might consist of the people also , who by his own grant may be lawfully present at such matters .

3. Be it a matter of Discipline , or a matter that concerned all the Churches , or what else Mr. Rutherford will have it ? It is plain that Paul and Barnabas when they were at Ierusalem , did declare such matters as here they do declare at Antioch , not onely to the Apostles and Elders , whom he perhaps would make a representative Church , but also to a Church besides them , I mean besides the Apostles and Elders ; for so it is said , Acts 15. 4. That at Ierus●lem they were received of the Church , and of the Apostles and Elders , and declared all things that God had done with them : and vers . 12. they declared to the multitude what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them . Now if they declared these things at Ierusalem not onely to the Apostles and Elders , as to a representative Church , but to the Church of the Faithfull also , as the Text saith , they did , what reason can be rendred that the Church , which was gathered together at Antioch , should be onely a representative Church ? And that the people there were not present ? For my part , I see no reason for it , but that they might declare these things to the Brethren a● Antioch , as well as to the Brethren at Ierusalem ; and as well to a representative Church at Ierusalem , as to a representative Church at Antioch . And therefore sith it is apparent that at Ierusalem they declared these things to a Church , which consisted of others besides Apostles and Elders ; the Church at Antioch to whom they declared the same things , might be also a Church of the like kinde , and not a representative Church , as our Brother conceives it to be .

4. The nature of the thing , which they doe declare to this Church was such , as that it was fit enough for the people to be acquainted therewith ; which the text mentions in two clauses ; first , more generally , all that God had done with them : Secondly , more specially , how he had opened the doore of Faith to the Gentiles . Now suppose the people had nothing to do in matters of Judicature by way of power therein , yet to be informed of other peoples conversion , and how God blessed the labors of the Apostles to that end , which are the things they declared to this Church , these are no such matters , but the people may bee acquainted therewith for their comfort , and that God might have praises from them all ; and therefore the Church to whom Paul and Barnabas declared these things , needs not to be understood of the Elders alone , but may well enough be a Church consisting also of ordinary Christians .

5. Paul thought it not unmeet to make known to all the Corinthians the grace of God bestowed on the Churches of Macedonia , 2 Cor. 9. 1 , 2. and declareth to them of Macedonia , the forwardnesse of the Corinthians in the grace of liberality , 2 Cor. 9. 2. shewing the good that came hereby , in that the example of Gods grace , in some provoked many others to the like , 2 Cor. 9. 2. your zeale , saith he , hath provoked very many ; and likewise in that , by this meanes , there redounded many thanksgivings unto God , vers . 12 , 13. And if upon these and other good causes he did thus practice towards the Christians of Macedonia and Achaia , I know no good reason why he and Barnabas should deal otherwise with the Christians at Antioch , and conceale from them the gracious workings of God by their Ministery amongst the Gentiles ; and make known the same onely to a representative Church of Elders .

As for our Brothers answer to the other Scripture , Act. 15. 30. That the assembling of the multitude , there spoken of , must be taken distributively , I conceive the text will not beare that exposition : for the words are that they gathered the multitude together , then delivered the Epistle . Now if this multitude was gathered together not in one assembly but diverse , how could the Epistle being but one , be delivered to them all ? Can one Epistle be delivered to sundry or severall assemblies at one time ? I suppose it is not possible , except we shall imagine there be sundry Coppies , one to be read in one assembly , and another in another ; whereof in the present case , there is not so much as the least hint . And if we would imagine such a matter , for which there is small reason ; yet since it is , Iudas and Silas , by whom this Epistle was sent , and who were to tell the same things by mouth , and who also upon the delivering of the Epistle exhorted the breathren of Antioch , with many words , as is cleare , vers . 22 , 23 , 27 , 32. Iudas and Sila● , I say , being but two men could not be present , and speak , and act these things in many assemblies at once , but must of necessity be both in one assembly , or at the most in two : but the text makes no mention of their being in two , but plainly enough intimates the contrary , that they were both together : and yet where they were present , there was the multitude gathered together , to receive the Epistle by their hands , and to heare the report and word of exhortation at their mouth . Unlesse therefore we will imagine that Iudas and Silas could be present , and act in many assemblies at once , there is no reason to think this multitude among whom they were present and acted , to be many Congregations or assemblies .

And therefore for his conclusion , pag. 475 , 476. That the mentioning of one multitude in the singular number , Acts 15. 30. can never prove that there was but one single Congregation at Antioch . The answer is , that we doe not lay the force of our reason in the mentioning of the multitude in the singular number , and therefore it can not thus be satisfied , or put off : for our words are these : The whole multitude of them were gathered together at the return of Paul and Barnabas from the Synod at Jerusalem , to heare the Epistle read , which was sent from that Synod : Answer p. 50. wherein it is easie to perceive , that we lay the force of our reason not in this , that the Church is called a multitude in the singular number ; but in this , that the whole multitude were gathered together , for such an end , as there is expressed : and this we still conceive may prove the point : For a Church , which is such a multitude , as is gathered together , for the receiving of one Epistle , which was sent unto them all , and which is gathered together to heare the Epistle read , and also to heare the same things by mouth , the men from whose mouth they must so heare , and from whose hands they must so receive , being no more but two ; such a Church as this can be no more , but one Congregation , or Assembly . Now Antioch was such a Church : and therefore was no more but one Congregation . If this conclusion be not granted , some way must be devised how many severall assemblies might all be receivers and hearers of one and the same Epistle at the same time , there being but one coppy of the Epistle , as also how they might at one time heare the same things declared to them by mouth , when there was but two men to declare the same . And when such a way is found out , we may then further consider thereof . But in the mean time , the grounds and reasons alledged doth induce me to think , that Antioch , where those things were thus done , was indeed , but one Congregation .

CHAP. XVII . Whether no liberties are given by Christ to the People , but women must exercise the same , as well as men : and of the peoples liberty about Ordination , or the Calling of Ministers .

IN the answer , p. 8. we have these words , viz. Governing properly so called we acknowledge not in any , but in the Elders alone , 1 Cor. 12. vers . 28. Rom. 12. 8. Heb. 13. 17. If that word be ascribed to the people , it must be understood in a more improper sense ; for that which impropriety of speech were more fitly called liberty or priviledge : and yet this liberty when it is exercised about Ordination , Deposition , Excommunication , &c. is of the whole body communiter , or in generall , but not of all and every member in particular , as you conceive us to hold ; for women and children are members , and yet are not to act in such matters , the one being debarred by their sex , and the other for want of understanding and discretion . This passage Mr. Rutherford having related ( though with some variation ) in his pag. 476 : in answer thereto , he saith thus , p. 477. If there be no governing power in women , nor any act at all in Excommunication , you loose many arguments , that you bring 1 Cor. 5. to prove that all have hand in Excommunication , 1. Because Paul writeth to all . 2. All were to mourne . 3. All were to forbeare the company of the Excommunicated : then belike Paul writeth not to all Saints at Corinth , not to women , and women were not to mourne for the scandall , nor to forbeare his company .

Answ . If Mr. Tompson and I doe being such arguments from 1 Cor. 5. why is not the place quoted , where we doe bring them ? I suppose there is no such place at all that can be produced ; and therefore I desire so much favour , that what we never said , may not be imputed to us , nor divulged abroad , as ours . If others doe bring such arguments from 1 Cor. 5. they that bring them are able to speake for themselves , and to give account of their own arguments ; but I know no reason that doth require , that we should be drawn to defend such arguments as we never used ; nor that doth allow our Reverend Brother to report such arguments as ours ; which having never been used by us , I counted it therefore an impertinent digression , to spend time in the defence of them .

The priviledge , saith he , being a part of liberty purchased by Christs body , it must be due to 〈…〉 for the liberty wherewith Christ hath made women free , cannot be taken away 〈…〉 of God from their sex , except in Christ Iesus there be a difference between Iew and Gentile , male and female .

Answ . That which is in the people , we say , in propriety of speech , is more ●itly called liberty or priviledge : but of liberty purchased by Christs body or blood , we make no mention at all : and therefore our Brother might have spared speech thereof . But it is true indeed , that the people can have no liberty , but women also may exercise the 〈…〉 else their liberty purchased for them by Christ is taken away ? It seems , he so conceives : but then I desire to know how his own doctrine elsewhere , and the Apostl●s w●●ds can stand together : for in one place , he saith , that Acts 14. 23. Proveth that Elders ordaine Elder , with lifting up of the hands of the people , and this , saith he , is 〈…〉 doctrine , Due Right p. 190. and in another place , he saith , The people have Gods right to choose Ministers , for so the word prescribeth ; for which in his margent he alledgeth 〈◊〉 severall texts of Scripture , Acts 15. 22. 1 Cor. 16. 3. 2. Cor. 8. 19. Acts 6. 4. Acts 14. 23. and in his text alledgeth Tertullian , Cyprian , Ambrose , Origen , Chrysostome , the Councell of Nice , the first generall Councell of Constantinople , with other Councels and Authors witnessing the same : pag. 201 , 202. And in a third place , he grants that all matters in the Church must be done with the peoples consent , consentiente plebe , alledging a matter of 18. or 19. Authors for the same tenet . Peaceable Plea , p. 49. and in another place he alledgeth and approveth the judgement of Mr. Calderwood , and Mr. Cartwright affirming that this liberty is purchased by the blood of Christ : Due Right , Secondly , pag. 464. All which , do plainly shew that in his judgement , the people have some 〈◊〉 , or priviledge , or right in Church matters ; yea , as himself saith in this , they have divinum jus , Gods right : And yet for all this , the Apostles words do plainly forbid women to speak in the Church , 1 Cor. 14. 34. 1 Tim. 2. 12. which very prohibition to women doth also secretly imply , that men may have liberty to practise , though women may not . Now then , if the people have liberty , priviledge , right to consent , and act in Church matters ; yea , to speak in the Church , and yet women may not speak therein , how can this stand , which here M. Rutherford writes , That if the people have any liberty , this liberty must also be due to women ? If the Apostles words and our Brothers own doctrine in the places cited do stand , his saying in the place , we have now in hand , cannot stand , they being so contrary one to another . Thirdly , saith he , What priviledge the people have in Ordination to conferre a ministery , which they neither have formally , nor virtually , I know not .

Answ . Neither formally , nor virtually ? then hear your own words , pag. 7. I deny not but there is a power virtuall , not formall in the Church of beleevers , to supply the want of ordination of Pastors , hic & nunc ; this power is virtuall , not formall , &c. Whereas in the place we have in hand , the virtuall power as well as the formall is denyed ; which things are not free from Interferring , or strong appearance thereof .

Our words are not just the same which M. Rutherford sets downe , a priviledge in ordination to conferre a Ministery ; but these are our words , a liberty exercised about ordination , &c. And who knows not but there may be a liberty exercised about ordination , or any other Ordinance by way of consent thereto , or desire thereof , &c. without any authoritative acting therein ? And if this liberty about ordination be such a fault , then how shall he be justified , who doth give to the people a greater matter then this liberty doth amount unto , even a power to do that which shall stand for ordination it selfe ? which to do I conceive is more then to exercise some liberty about ordination . And when the reader shall have considered these ensuing words of M Rutherford : then let him be judge , whether M. Rutherford do not give this power unto the people in some cases . As a rose , saith he , caused to grow in winter by art , is of that same nature with a rose produced in summer by nature , though the manner of production be different ; so are they both true Pastors , those who have no call , but the peoples election , and those who have ordination by Pastors , p. 186. And in the page following , he gives two reasons to prove that in some cases election by the people onely may stand for ordination : 1. Because God is not necessarily tyed to succession of Pastors : 2. Because where men are gifted for the work of the Ministery , and there be no Pastors to be had , the giving of the Holy Ghost is a signe of a calling of God , who is not wanting to his own gracious intention , though ordinary means faile . Now if the people without Pastors may do that which shall stand for ordination , and if their election do make a Minister in some cases ; this seems to be more then onely to exercise some liberty about ordination , for as much as they may doe this latter , and possibly no Minister be made thereby ; whereas in the other case a man is made a true Pastor and Minister , as well as by ordination it selfe . Marvell it is therefore that the greater is allowed as lawfull , and not the lesser : that some liberty about ordination may not be allowed , and yet that can be allowed which may stand for ordination it self , and which makes a Minister● as truly as ordination doth .

CHAP. XVIII . Of Mr. Rutherfords report of Synodicall propositions in new-England .

NExt after this , our reverend Author falls to scanning , as he saith , pag. 476. some Synodicall propositions of the Churches of New England , as he calls them , together with a Table of Church power , which he calls the Table of New England . But with favour of soworthy a man , he doth greatly mistake the matter : for neither was there any such Synod , nor Synodicall propositions as he speaks of , nor any such Table of New England , as hee mentioneth . There was indeed at Cambridge in the year 1643. a printed conference of some of the Elders of that Country ; where sundry points of Church judgement were privatly discoursed of , and this was all . But as the meeting was not any Synod , as Synods are usually understood , so neither were there any Synodicall propositions there agreed upon , nor any table of propositions agreed upon to be given forth as the Doctrine of New England . This I am able to testifie , having been present at that meeting from the beginning thereof unto the end : and sundry others of the Elders of these Churches can testifie the same , upon the same ground : And knowing full well the truth of what I heare relate , I will not spend time in replying to what he hath written upon so manifest misinformation , and mistake . What information he goeth upon , I know not : per adventure some notes may have come to his view , which one or other might gather at that conference for his own private use : Peradventure some in their simplicity meaning no hurt , many have called that private conference by the name and tearme of a Syno● , and M. Rutherford might thereupon adventure to publish in print as here we see . But however they mistake a Rose , sure I am , Synodicall propositions there were none ; 〈◊〉 any Synod at all , not New England Table . And therefore I think himselfe and others may do well and wisely hereafter , to be informed by good and sufficient intelligence of such things as they publish to the world concer●ing the Churches in New England , or else not to beleeve the same , much lesse to divulge the same in print . For what comfort can it be to any Christian to receive , and publish to the world against a mans neighb●u● , specially against whole Churches of Christ , such reports as for the matter contained in them do not agree with truth ?

CHAP. XIX . Of the Appeales of Luther and Cranmer : and of the power and jurisdiction in generall Councells denyed by Mr. Rutherford ; whether therein he do not contradict himselfe , and also overthrow the jurisdiction of Classicall , Provinciall , and Nationall Assemblies .

IN his page 482. alledging Mr. Tompson and me , pag. 16 , 17. Hee reports us to say , that though some have appealed , as Luther and Cranmer from the Pope to a generall Councell , yet not from a Congregation to a generall Councell .

Answ . As he one of these pages hath nothing at all concerning this matter , and therefore might well have been spared , so neither of them both doth make any mention of Luther , either of one purpose or other : and therefore it is some marvaile , why he should be mentioned as thus spoken of by us , who do not speak of him at all so much as one word , for any purpose whatsoever . Nor do the rest of the words of appealing from a Congregation to a generall Councell agree with ours , as we have set them downe in the 16. page alledged ; and therefore that our mind and meaning may appeare , let me relate our own words which are these , How this example ( sc . of Cramners appealing to Councell , related by Mr. Fox ) doth suit the present question , we do not understand ; for his appeale was not from a particular Congregation , but from the Pope : nor was it from a Synod , but to the next generall Councell , which from that day to this hath not yet been assembled nor called . If we must hold a necessity of appeales to such a Iudicatory as Cranmer appealed unto , then the supremacy of Synods provinciall , and nationall is utterly taken away . These are our words in the place alledged by Mr. Rutherford : now what doth he answer thereto ?

In matters doctrinall , saith he , some as Luther , and others have justly appealed from Congregation to a generall Councell , though Luther and Cranmer did it not .

Answ . Say it be true , that Cranmer did it not , yet for Luther how can it be that he should be an instance , both of such as did it not , and of such as did it ? for Luther and others have justly done it , and yet Luther and Cranmer are two of them that did it not , these are sayings which seem not to agree . Againe , if Luther did so appeale , why is no proof alledged for Confirmation of what here is affirmed ? which if there had been , we might have considered thereof . But sith there is not , we may be allowed to forbeare assent , till that which is here nakedly affirmed , be further strengthened by some proofe or other , to make it good . Lastly , if Luther or others have justly appealed from a Congregation to a generall Councell , then why will it not be lawfull for others upon like occasion to do the like ? And if so , then ( as we argued in the answer ) the supremacy of Classicall , Provinciall , and Nationall Presbyteries is utterly taken away : and so , by this meanes causes and controversies may still be depending , and never come to be determined so long as this world shall endure ; which whether it be agreeable to the wisdome of Christ , and good of his people let the wise judge .

Though verily , I professe , I cannot see what power of Jurisdiction to censure scandalls , can be in a generall Councell ; there may be some meerly doctrinall power , if such a Councell could be had , and that is all .

Answ . For my part , I am altogether of the same minde . But here I have a quere or two to propose to our reverend Brothers serious consideration ; first of all , how this passage doth agree with that which himself hath written , pag. 387. where he saith , It may be made good that a power Dogmaticall is not different in nature from a power of Jurisdiction , and that we read not of any society , which hath power to meet to make lawes and decrees , which have not power also to back their decrees with punishment . Yea , he saith further that if the Jewish Synodry might meet to declare judicially what was Gods law in point of conscience , and what not , farre more may they punish contraveners of the law : For Anomothetick power in a society , which is the greater power , and is in the fountaine , must presuppose in the society 〈◊〉 lesser power , which is to punish . Anomothetick power ministeriall cannot want a power of censuring . So that whereto in the place we have in hand , he saith , there may be in a generall Councell , some 〈◊〉 doctrinall power without any power of jurisdiction to censure , in this other place , he saith , these powers do not differ in nature , nor can the former be without the latter ; but doth alwayes presuppose the same , as that which is lesser , and which it cannot want . Now how these things do agree I am not able to understand : next of all how doth this passage we have in hand agree , with that which is written p. 308 , 309. Where he saith , it is by accident , and not through want of inate and intrinsecall power , that the court of a Catholick Councell can not in an ordinary and constant way exercise the power which Christ hath given to her ; and what that power is he expresseth in two or three lines proceeding , viz. A power of jurisdiction to Excommunicate and relax from Excommunication even nationall Churches . If the Lord should be pleased to give the Christian Churches a generall Councell this day , might lawfully in a jurisdictiall way declare the faction of the Romish pretended Catholicks to be mysticall Babylon — which in Excommunication in the essence and substance of the act . And againe , This of our Saviour , Tell the Church , is necessarily to be applyed to all Churches and Courts of Christ , even to a generall Councell . And in page 304. He tells in that a power of jurisdiction ( though he call it extraordinary and remote , and which is but rarely to be put forth in acts ) is given to the Catholick visible Presbytery , of the whole Catholick visible Church . In all which places he plainly affirmeth there is a power of jurisdiction to censure scandalls in a generall Councell , which in the place we have in hand he doth as plainly deny .

Thirdly , if there be no power of jurisdiction to censure scandals in a generall Councell , then how shall it appeare that there is such power of Jurisdiction in the Classicall , Provinciall and Nationall Presbyteries , which are farre lesse ? Yea , and that there is in these Presbyteries a power Independent and Supreame , without appeale to any other . For such power there must be in some of them , if there be any power of jurisdiction in them at all , sith we are told there is no power of jurisdiction in the generall Councell to appeale unto . Now how shall it appeare that any such Independent supream power of jurisdiction is given to any of those Presbyteries ? where are the texts of Scripture that speak of such power ? For our parts we know of none , but do still think that this power is placed by Christ in a single Congregation and its Presbytery , and are the rather strengthened in this apprehension , for that the reason which is wont to be given against the Congregations power , and wherein our Brethren are wont to place their greatest strength , sc . that appeals are juris naturalis , and that defects , in the parts are to be supplyed and holden by the whole , this reason we see is now removed and utterly taken away , forasmuch as all power of jurisdiction is denyed to the generall Councell which is the inevitable . Now if there be no power of jurisdiction within the generall Councell , then there can be no appeals to such a Councell for such an end : and if no appeales to that Councell , then the rule doth not alwayes hold , that there must be appeals from the lesser assemblies to the greater : and if this do not alwayes hold , then there may be independent power of jurisdiction in a Congregation without appeals from the same , though it be a lesser assembly then the Classicall , Provinciall and Nationall Presbyteries , and thus our purpose is gained . For how can it be avoided , except this power of jurisdiction ( yea supream or independent power ) which is denyed to the generall Councell , could be proved to be in the Classes , Synods , or nationall Presbyteries , which we think cannot be done . Indeed to say on the one side , that 〈◊〉 is no independent power in the Congregation , and to say on the other side , that there is no power at all of jurisdiction in generall Councells , this doth inevitably lay a necessity of such Independent power in these intermediat assemblies of the Classicall , Provinciall and nationall Presbyteries ; except we shall say there is no such power at all appointed by Christ in any Church assemblies on earth . Now if such independent power be given to the Presbyteries mentioned , ( as it needs must if it be neither in the generall Councell , nor in the single Congregations ) then I desire to know upon what scripture or scritures , such power in the said Presbyteries is grounded and built ; and whether the said power belong unto them all , or only unto some of them , and which they be , and why not to the rest as well : yea , why not to the single Congregation , nor yet to the generall Councell , as well as to any of them . When this quaere is answered , and the answer sufficiently proved by scripture , then we shall see more reason for the jurisdiction of such assemblies over the particular Congregations then yet we have seen . In the mean , time this quaere with the rest I leave to our Brethrens consideration .

CHAP. XX. If it were granted that the light of nature teacheth all societies to end in Monarchies , whether it would not thence follow , that the government of Churches must so end , as well as that Congregations must depend on the government of Synods , because the light of nature teacheth a Communion in government to other societies . And whether the multitude of Grecians and Hebrews , who chose the seven Deacons , Act. 6. were two Congregations or one onely .

PAG . 482. If Churches must be dependent on Synods , because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government , by the same reason Churches must end in a Monarchy on earth ; for which he alledgeth the answ . pag. 20. and then subjoyneth his answer , thus : I see this said without any approbation : Churches depend on many above them for unity ; but what consquence in this , Erg● they depend upon one visible Monarch ? It is an unjust consequence .

Answ . With favour of so worthy a man , he greatly wrongs our words ( and thereby wrongs the reader ) by leaving out those words wherein the plainenesse and strength of our argumentation lyes . Therefore I am forced here to relate the order and progresse of the dispute in that script of ours , and to set down our words there used , because as Mr. Rutherford hath set them down , the strength of consequence is suppressed from the Readers knowledge , and so indeed his answer is made easie : but the naked truth lyes thus . Our reverend Brother to whose Treatise we return answer in that small piece of ours , having said , that communion and assistance in government is taught by the very light of nature to all societies whatsoever , whether Commonwealths , or Armies , Universities , or Navies ; he presently addeth by way of prevention . Not that therefore this government of Churches should ( as those ) end in a Monarchy upon earth . In answer whereto , besides other things , we have these words , pag. 21. If Churches must be dependent on the government of Synods , because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government to all societies whatsoever , then we see not how it will be avoided , but by the same reason , Churches must end in a Monarchie on earth , if it were once cleared , that the light of nature doth teach all societies whatever so to end ; so there is as good reason for this as for the other . Which last words , if it were once proved &c. Mr. Rutherford wholy leaves out and suppresseth , and so makes his own answer more easie . But I desire so much favour , which I think is but reasonable , that he that will undertake to answer our writing , would represent our words and arguing as it is , and no otherwise , and then I am content that the same may come under tryall . Now our arguing is this ; If Churches must be dependent upon the government of Synods upon this reason ; because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government to all societies whatsoever ; then by the like reason let it be once proved ( which is by Mr. Herle affirmed ) that the light of nature teacheth all societies to end in a Monarchy , and it will thereupon follow that Churches must likewise end in the same manner . If we yeeld thus much that what the light of nature teacheth other societies , the same must be observed in the government of Churches : I think it will then follow , that if the light of nature teach other societies to end in a Monarchy on earth , the government of Churches must do so also . This is our manner of arguing , in which the consequence is the same with that which our Brethren think so strong , viz. that because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government , therefore there must be in the Churches a government of Synods .

If any say the consequence is not alike necessary in both cases , because the ground doth not hold alike in both , for the light of nature doth not teach all societies on earth to end in a Monarchie , as it doth teach a communion and assistance in government The answer in that we have plainly said the same , in the place of the Answerer alledgeth , viz. p. 20 , 21. But the main question lyes not there , whether other societies do end in Monarchies , ( for though the reverend author whom we there doe answer , do seem so to judge ; yet we have there plainly declared , that we conceive of that matter otherwise : ) but here doth lye the main question , viz. Suppose it were granted , that light of nature doth teach all societies to end in a Monarchy on earth , whether would it not then follow that Churches must also so end : And that this is the thing in question wil plainly appear to any that shall peruse the place . And to this question , our answer is that the consequence for the affirmative is as good as in that other case , in which our Brethren do think it so strong : viz. for the government of Synods over congregations , from the communion and assistance — government taught by the light of nature to other societies : and our reverend brother granting that the light of nature doth teach the one as well as the other unto other societies , that is , that they should end in Monarchies , as well as have communion in government , our answer is that thereupon the consequence will be as strong for the one as for the other in Churches . In which arguing it is easie to perceive that we go upon the ground which was laid and given us by our author : and therefore for M. Rutherford to suppresse this ground which we have there so plainly expressed , and to represent and set down our arguing as if there had been no such matter ; this indeed may make way for himself to give answer to us with ease , but whether it be candid and faire thus to deale , I leave it to himself , and the godly wise to consider .

In the same pag. 482. he alledgeth the answer pag. 26. and sets down these words as ours , viz. The Graecians and Hebrews made not two Churches , but one Congregation ; they called the multitude of the Disciples together , vers . 2.

Answ . Here againe our words are set down unperfectly : for the question being , whether those Graecians and Hebrews , Act. 6. were two severall Congregation in one Church , or both but one Congregation , we for this latter do not onely alledge that one particular which Mr. Rutherford mentioneth , that the Apostles called the multitude of the disciples together , vers . 2. but moreover that this multitude must look out seven men duely qualified , whom they might appoint over that businesse , v. 3. and that the saying pleased this whole multitude , and that they thereupon chose seven who are there named v. 5. and set them before the Apostles , v. 6. who laid their hands on them : ibid. In all which , say we , there is no hint of two Congregations , one of Graecians and another of Hebrews , but all the businesse of chusing and ordeyning these Deacons , seems to be transacted and done in one Congregation . For when the text saith that the Apostles called the multitude of the disciples unto them , and made a speech to this multitude being assembled , and the whole multitude did hear what the Apostles spake , and well liked the same , and thereupon joyntly concurred in one act of chusing seven , and presenting them being chosen before the Apostles , it seems to me more rationall to look at these things as done in one Congregation , then to imagine there were two , one of Graecians another of Hebrews : for of two Congregations wherein this choise of Deacons should be made , the text for ought I perceive doth not afford the least hint .

But let us hear Mr. Rutherford his answer . That the chiefe , saith he , of both Graecians and Hebrews were contained in one , to give their consent to the admission of the Deacons , I conceive .

Answ . The chief are not so much as once mentioned in the story : but contrarily the text expressely mentioneth the multitude , vers . 2. and the whole multitude , vers . 5. Now to exclude the multitude , whom the text doth expresly mention , and to attribute the assembling and acting only to the chiefe , of whom the holy Ghost speaks not one word , this ( to say no more ) seems a violent forcing of the text .

And if somthing had not forced him to it , I think he would not have used it ; for elswhere ( viz. p. 495 , 496. ) he alledgeth this very scripture , and that three severall times , within the space of a doozen or sixteen lines , to prove that the people , yea the multitude are to have the choise of Officers ; and saith he , If it please not the whol multitude , Act. 6. vers . 5. it is not a choise . And in pag. 190. He tells us , that the multitude Act. 6. are directed to choose out seven men , as being best acquainted with them ; and that accordingly they did look out seven men and chose them . In which places we see he can attribute this choise to the whole multitude , without any mention of the chief , or so much as the least intimation of the action to be performed by them , the multitude being excluded or absent ; yea , he gives a reason of this choise , which will reach the multitude , and not the chief only , except we shall say , that the chief only were acquainted with these seven : whereas in the place we have in hand , he would exclude the multitude , and ascribe the action to the chiefe onely .

But that all the thousands of the Church of Jerusalem were here as in one ordinary Congregation , I judge unpossible .

Answ . For asmuch as the text tells us that the whole multitude of the disciples were gathered together to act as here is recorded about the election of Deacons , therefore we judge that it was not unpossible for them so to do ; for how